Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 5.7 Billion Problems But The House Ain't One


Secretary of Eumenes

Recommended Posts

That's right. The President does not have House Chamber privileges, which is why both chambers need to pass a resolution granting access for the SOTU address. I believe preventing physical access to the Chamber would fall under the Sergeant-At-Arms, the same as security of the Capitol Building does. Trump trying to get in anyway would probably be impeachable, but he's done lots of things that are probably impeachable, it still doesn't happen unless Senate Republicans go along with it.

ETA: I just saw a correction that the President may have chamber access privileges, the language is unclear. He definitely does not have speaking privileges though. In addition, the Speaker controls the lights, audio, recording, temperature, and anything else you can think of that relates to the Chamber.

Some folks may remember there was a House GOP "sit-in" in the chamber in 2008 in protest of a proposed oil-and-gas regulatory bill Democrats were considering. Pelosi turned off the lights and microphones and the GOP members sat in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

That's right. The President does not have House Chamber privileges, which is why both chambers need to pass a resolution granting access for the SOTU address. I believe preventing physical access to the Chamber would fall under the Sergeant-At-Arms, the same as security of the Capitol Building does. Trump trying to get in anyway would probably be impeachable, but he's done lots of things that are probably impeachable, it still doesn't happen unless Senate Republicans go along with it.

ETA: I just saw a correction that the President may have chamber access privileges, the language is unclear. He definitely does not have speaking privileges though. In addition, the Speaker controls the lights, audio, recording, temperature, and anything else you can think of that relates to the Chamber.

I'm not sure this is a fight that the Democrats really want though.  Barring the President from speaking indicates they're afraid of what he has to say.  Democrats have the disadvantage in that they're trying to be the not dysfunctional side here. 

I dunno, maybe Pelosi has this planned out better than I do, but it seems like she's opening up a new front in the war vs Trump that is the kind of petty politics he loves, when Trump is clearly losing the main fight of shutdown vs functional government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not sure this is a fight that the Democrats really want though.  Barring the President from speaking indicates they're afraid of what he has to say.  Democrats have the disadvantage in that they're trying to be the not dysfunctional side here. 

I dunno, maybe Pelosi has this planned out better than I do, but it seems like she's opening up a new front in the war vs Trump that is the kind of petty politics he loves, when Trump is clearly losing the main fight of shutdown vs functional government. 

I mean, maybe. But I think there's a bigger chance this just winds up embarrassing for Trump, all the more so if he tries forcing the issue. Especially if Democrats do something clever like organize a charity event on the steps of the Capitol for furloughed Federal workers on the night the SOTU is supposed to take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Most houses of legislature that are modeled on British Parliament, like the US and Canada have done, have a position that is both ceremonial and functional as well, called an Usher or a Master at Arms or something, who controls visitors to the legislative chamber.

It goes back to revolution in the UK, and the physical separation of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The doors of the Commons can be barred to both Lords and King. When parliament opens the Lords and the Crown have to be invited in order to enter.

In Canada the Usher of the Black Rod, iirc, opens parliament by knocking on the door and can bar entry to the chamber.

I know that the Senate and the President have to be invited in order to speak in Congress, do they also have to be invited just to enter the chamber? I assume there is also a similar person who ceremonially can block entry into the Congress. Who is that? If Trump shows up and is refused entry and tried to enter anyway, that would be an impeachable offense, wouldn’t it?

The House has a Sergeant at Arms.  There is even a ceremonial Mace, but as of when I was an intern on the Hill and gave tours, it had never been used.  That may have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The House has a Sergeant at Arms.  There is even a ceremonial Mace, but as of when I was an intern on the Hill and gave tours, it had never been used.  That may have changed.

I love the idea of the whatever-army-joke-man standing in that little entrance repeatedly palming a spiked mace while Trump  sends his lackeys to test the crossing until he finally tells Stephen Miller it's his turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I love the idea of the whatever-army-joke-man standing in that little entrance repeatedly palming a spiked mace while Trump  sends his lackeys to test the crossing until he finally tells Stephen Miller it's his turn.

Here is the current incumbent of office for you to fantasize over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Here is the current incumbent of office for you to fantasize over.

 

On the other hand, check out the list of previous SaAs. Henry Casson, who had the job from 1899-1911, definitely looks like a guy who would've gotten into a shoot-out with Teddy Roosevelt if it came to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I mean, maybe. But I think there's a bigger chance this just winds up embarrassing for Trump, all the more so if he tries forcing the issue. Especially if Democrats do something clever like organize a charity event on the steps of the Capitol for furloughed Federal workers on the night the SOTU is supposed to take place.

I agree this is more likely to blow up in Trump's face than not.  But I'm still not really sure it makes sense to be opening up new fronts on a PR war that you're already winning.  I feel like a high stakes PR showdown over letting Trump in the building vs not doing so just encourages him to double down further.  Which might be what Pelosi wants, because she thinks she can expose Trump as a blustering wimp, and she might be right.  But I think it just makes it more likely the shutdown goes on and on, and I'm hoping to avoid that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree this is more likely to blow up in Trump's face than not.  But I'm still not really sure it makes sense to be opening up new fronts on a PR war that you're already winning.  I feel like a high stakes PR showdown over letting Trump in the building vs not doing so just encourages him to double down further.  Which might be what Pelosi wants, because she thinks she can expose Trump as a blustering wimp, and she might be right.  But I think it just makes it more likely the shutdown goes on and on, and I'm hoping to avoid that. 

Feels like no matter what, the shutdown will go on and on because Trump sees every negotiation as a zero sum game. Either you win or you lose and the other person has to lose big. The problem is the fucking losers are Americans and he gives no fucks. So he will dig in, he will continue to offer bills that include loads of bullshit (asylum changes, DACA changes, TPS changes, etc) and he will continue to lie about it. I just don't see this ending until people take to the streets that they're not getting their IRS refunds or TSA agents all strike and close down airports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did the smart thing with the speech, keep it tied to the shutdown. The state of the  union is that it has a non-functioning government because of the big bigoted baby prez and his employees at the Senate. The Dems are ahead on messaging her, “wah wah, I can’t give my speech! Politics, fake news!” Get fuckt, people can’t pay their bills or get medication, no one wants to watch you stroke your dick about how great you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's Pelosi supposed to do?  Cave and let him deliver the SotU whenever he wants?  Thi is getting ridiculous.  Trump owned this shut down on national television with Dem leadership present at an event he orchestrated.   

Caving on anything is just going to make certain that he'll do this over and over again.  Fuck the polls and public opinion, he's already owned this one.  No negotiotiating shit until govt is funded.  He had two fucking years with a majority in both plagued houses to get his fucking wall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Relic said:

We always knew reality tv would be the downfall of civilization, but who could have predicted this shit parade?

Well, The Simpsons, back in March 2000, but we already knew that.

Though they only specifically predicted that President Trump would bankrupt the nation. They didn't go into the other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Pelosi's strategy with Bush was to make sure his approval ratings tanked, while taking on the SS privatization efforts.

This is apocryphal.  One of my favorite anecdotes to bring up in boilerplate lectures on the limits of presidents "going public" is Bush's SS reform push.  He embarked on a "60 stops in 60 days" tour after announcing the proposal in his triumphant re-election SotU.  Have to check my notes for the exact figure, but his sources and the GOP spent around $54 million dollars on the campaign.  The result?  More people were against his proposal after the campaign than before it.  Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with that.  Entrenched interests deadset against any privatization of SS did that.  Anyway, that was 2005 when the Dems were still in the minority and preceded Katrina in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I agree this is more likely to blow up in Trump's face than not.  But I'm still not really sure it makes sense to be opening up new fronts on a PR war that you're already winning.  I feel like a high stakes PR showdown over letting Trump in the building vs not doing so just encourages him to double down further.  Which might be what Pelosi wants, because she thinks she can expose Trump as a blustering wimp, and she might be right.  But I think it just makes it more likely the shutdown goes on and on, and I'm hoping to avoid that. 

How can one present a state of the union speech when there is no union, not even a government?  He shut it down because he didn't want union, only my way or the end of government. So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...