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

[Bryan_Ekers]

Is there a widespread view that people who are “seeing asylum” are just trying to use sob stories to jump the queue on conventional immigrants? That would seem to explain a lot of the bizarre hostility to the concept, especially if coupled with a belief that even conventional immigration should be choked off to virtually zero.

[Zakalwe]

@HurricaneDitka

I suspect the Secret Service would intervene prior to that happening.

Does this mean that we’ll get to see the Secret Service physically restrain Trump? That’d be WAAAY beyond great!

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

I suspect the Secret Service would intervene prior to that happening.

Why should the Secret Service interrupt a lawful arrest? Are they a law enforcement organization or mob enforcers?

[Fair_Rarity]

@Sherrerd

Battle Royale!

If Trump had to do a verified weigh-in, there would be no such thing.

239 in hair product in spray tan alone, maybe.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@alphaboi867

Now Trump’s insisting the State of the Union go ahead because he was already invited. So WTF is that going to look like? Is he going to just hold a rally and call it the State of the Union, give it in the Senate chamber (w/o any Democrats attending), or just show up any with his entourage and hope he doesn’t get locked and look like Caroline of Brunswick?

The president doesn’t (or certainly shouldn’t) have any more right to speak on the floor of Congress than anyone, i.e. not without their expressed invitation and permission. If there’s some belief that he can demand access, than I guess you’ve given up on that whole “three branches of government” thing.

[galen_ubal]

@Bryan_Ekers

The president doesn’t (or certainly shouldn’t) have any more right to speak on the floor of Congress than anyone, i.e. not without their expressed invitation and permission. If there’s some belief that he can demand access, than I guess you’ve given up on that whole “three branches of government” thing.

This is correct. Past presidents have given the SOTU address at the Capitol at the express invitation of Congress.

Trump prepares two versions of State of the Union address as shutdown tensions escalate

The White House is forging ahead with State of the Union preparations despite no commitment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold the annual address at the Capitol, further escalating the political tit-for-tat between the two leaders as the federal government remains partially shuttered.

President Trump is preparing two versions of the speech — one that could be delivered in Washington and another that would be given somewhere else in the country, depending on the circumstance, according to a senior White House official.

[octopus]

@Zakalwe

Does this mean that we’ll get to see the Secret Service physically restrain Trump? That’d be WAAAY beyond great!

Wait, we are going to have law enforcement use force to protect the territory of the House because we are in a standoff about protecting the territory of the nation? If I were Trump I’d work that into the speech.

[Bryan_Ekers]

It’s a dumb point but still too clever for Trump.

[Zakalwe]

@octopus

Wait, we are going to have law enforcement use force to protect the territory of the House because we are in a standoff about protecting the territory of the nation? If I were Trump I’d work that into the speech.

Well, uninvited, Trump would be an illegal immigrant to the House floor. Lock him up! Lock him up!

[galen_ubal]

Here’s a bit from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) about the current state of the State of the Union speech.

Here’s what might happen

There are lots of possibilities in the air right now (and only seven days before Mr Trump is scheduled to deliver the speech).

They include:

Mr Trump delivers the speech on January 29 in the Oval Office
Mr Trump delivers the speech on January 29 somewhere else
The speech is delayed to another date as Speaker Pelosi has requested
Mr Trump delivers a written State of the Union instead

And yep, there’s even a chance the government shutdown will end and things will go ahead on January 29 in front of both houses of Congress like normal.

For those who don’t know, the ABC is modeled on the BBC, and is well-regarded as a factual news source. And sometimes it’s good for Americans to see how outsiders are seeing us.

Me? I think Trump will rock up to the Capitol uninvited, fistful of paper displayed prominently, and complain bitterly about being prevented from making his speech before Congress - and then go on to some other, prearranged location.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

Why should the Secret Service interrupt a lawful arrest? Are they a law enforcement organization or mob enforcers?

They have a duty to protect the President. I’m not terribly familiar with their SOPs, but I imagine that this means not allowing people to lay hands on the President in a physical confrontation. For example, if the President’s limo, with him present inside, were to violate a traffic law or be involved in a minor fender-bender, I suspect they might not allow a random police patrolman to approach the vehicle while armed and order the occupants, including the President, out of the vehicle.

[Bryan_Ekers]

The Secret Service can override the president’s decisions to travel - they are not required to clear a path for him wherever he decides to go, especially if the destination looks closed (or if this situation were more serious, if it looks hostile or dangerous in a way the Service couldn’t be confident of handling). I don’t expect they will support any effort on his part to barge into congress, and frankly I don’t expect him to make a serious effort to do so; he’ll just want to look like he made a serous attempt to do so.

[ElvisL1ves]

@HurricaneDitka

I suspect the Secret Service would intervene prior to that happening.

Maybe. Are they getting paid?

[enipla]

@Bryan_Ekers

The Secret Service can override the president’s decisions to travel - they are not required to clear a path for him wherever he decides to go, especially if the destination looks closed (or if this situation were more serious, if it looks hostile or dangerous in a way the Service couldn’t be confident of handling). I don’t expect they will support any effort on his part to barge into congress, and frankly I don’t expect him to make a serious effort to do so; he’ll just want to look like he made a serous attempt to do so.

Kinda wonder what they would do if he just said “I’m going for a walk, with you or without you”.

Would they physically restrain him and call his physician?

Pretty sure the guys that man the white house grounds would end up just ignoring his demands to open the gate. Or would they?

(Talking any President here, not just Trump)

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

They have a duty to protect the President. I’m not terribly familiar with their SOPs, but I imagine that this means not allowing people to lay hands on the President in a physical confrontation. For example, if the President’s limo, with him present inside, were to violate a traffic law or be involved in a minor fender-bender, I suspect they might not allow a random police patrolman to approach the vehicle while armed and order the occupants, including the President, out of the vehicle.

I just can’t imagine a legal basis for the Secret Service to interfere in a lawful arrest. Members of Congress have a constitutional provision to protect them from arrest except for serious crimes. The President does not. That implies to me that the President has no protection from lawful arrest.

I would suggest that if the Secret Service sought to stop of lawful arrest, those special agents should be charged with the appropriate crimes for interfering with the police discharging their duties.

[Folacin]

@Ravenman

Members of Congress have a constitutional provision to protect them from arrest except for serious crimes. The President does not. That implies to me that the President has no protection from lawful arrest.

Now there is an interesting question for the originalist/textualists and the whole “can the President be indicted” question - the Constitution specifically gives Congress a pass for certain actions, but is silent regarding the President.

It seems the simplest reading is that he can indeed be arrested/indicted (since at some level those are the same thing).

[Chronos]

I’m actually of the school of thought that the President can’t be federally indicted against his will, on the grounds of him being the embodiment of the executive… but the Sergeant at Arms of the House is not under the executive branch, and so his duties are not in any way impeded by the President’s status. That’s why I’d so like to see such a scenario.

[Ravenman]

@Folacin

Now there is an interesting question for the originalist/textualists and the whole “can the President be indicted” question - the Constitution specifically gives Congress a pass for certain actions, but is silent regarding the President.

This provision was actually discussed in the various Office of Legal Counsel opinions that concluded that the President is immune to indictment.

@Chronos

I’m actually of the school of thought that the President can’t be federally indicted against his will, on the grounds of him being the embodiment of the executive… but the Sergeant at Arms of the House is not under the executive branch, and so his duties are not in any way impeded by the President’s status. That’s why I’d so like to see such a scenario.

Exactly. It puts the Secret Service in the position of acting without regard to any laws, only loyalty to the President. The idea that the USSS has some super-ability to “protect the President while he is in the act of breaking criminal laws” is absurd on its face. So much for that oath of office to the Constitution and so on.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Chronos

I’m actually of the school of thought that the President can’t be federally indicted against his will, on the grounds of him being the embodiment of the executive.

The Unitary Executive theory is, shall we say, somewhat contested. It just wasn’t part of constitutional theory until the Cheney regency brought it up.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@ElvisL1ves

The Unitary Executive theory is, shall we say, somewhat contested. It just wasn’t part of constitutional theory until the Cheney regency brought it up.

Sadly it seems we currently have a supreme court that is amenable to a unitary executive.

The King is dead. Long live the King!