Did Pelosi just un-invite Trump from the State of the Union?

Nobody elected Ann Coulter to anything, so her opinions are moot.

Some folks would gladly take a dump on the Constitution in exchange for a crisp $20 bill.

Huh? What does the Constitution have to do with who Pelosi negotiates with? Ultimately, there are some steps that have to be followed for a bill, such as a bill funding government operations for the currently “shut down” departments, to become law, but in the interim, the Constitution is silent on the specifics of how President Trump or Pelosi negotiate a way out of the impasse. If he wanted to send Ivanka, or Melania, or Ann Coulter to work out the details, that’d be just fine.

Some would do it for a Klondike Bar.

That sounds like something I’d expect to see at a liberal protest.

Not if what SingleMalt said is true.

He would have to appoint them. Since Anne Coulter isn’t appointed to shit, Ditka, she doesn’t represent the President in any capacity.

To talk with Pelosi? I think you’re confused. Is there some specific provision in the Constitution where this “appointment” requirement is established?

I am glad I don’t belong to a political party that is upset by Pelosi’s political move to halt the SOTU, but has no problem with a president that allows a commentator to overrule himself and the senate. Not me, no thanks.

I think you and I could perhaps agree that SingleMalt is, in fact, quite wrong.

[trying out a new way of arguing]That’s interesting. Do you have a cite that this has ever happened at a liberal protest? Or are you simply expecting that based on no evidence at all?

Be prepared for my next dozen posts to be nitpicking your lack of cite for this claim.
[/trying out a new way of arguing]

I’m sure you would expect that. I can’t say I’m surprised by what you’d expect.

Trump is striking back now:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/17/politics/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-trip-cancel/index.html

You’re off to a bad start. “That sounds like something I’d expect …” is not a claim that that particular thing has happened.

Since you asked…

Seriously, arguing that one can negotiate with un-appointed entities is not at all how this world works, or has ever worked.

But, go ahead. Negotiate with me a lower phone bill, then take that to your service provider, see if they agree I have authority. :slight_smile:

“I want to buy that house.”
“I don’t own it.”
“Doesn’t matter - I’m negotiating with YOU!”

That’s a hard fail right there. I know the President can make appointments to a variety of official positions. That’s not what I asked. I asked you if there was any requirement that the person who meets with Pelosi to work out a resolution to the shutdown be appointed.

I contend that the President could send Barron with a folded-up note like something straight out of middle school: “Hey Nancy, would you go out with me for $2.5B of wall funding” and that Pelosi could fold up her own little note and send it back to the President via Barron “No, but I’d do it for an even $2B” and that this form of negotiation, if it were acceptable to both parties, would not run afoul of the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree?

“I would like the fried chicken.”
“We don’t sell that, sir.”
“Let me call Popeye’s HQ and complain then!”
“Sir, this is an iHop.”
“So? I’m negotiating with you!”

But in your example, the President appointed Barron to negotiate with Pelosi. And in this example, Barron isn’t even negotiating - he’s just a courier.

I mean, can’t you come up with an example that actually describes your position? Because your position is this:

“I negotiated with Anne Coulter!”
“So? I didn’t tell you to. She doesn’t represent me. Where’d you get that idea?”
“Somebody on a message board told me I can negotiate with unappointed negotiators, so… oh. Dammit.”