Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:18 PM

msongs (30,559 posts)

constitution does not require a rebuttal. why do repubs get one? hmmm nt

17 replies, 987 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

17 replies	Author	Time	Post
constitution does not require a rebuttal. why do repubs get one? hmmm nt (Original post)	msongs	Jan 2012	OP
This is when I turn the television off....	FrenchieCat	Jan 2012	#1
It's called tradition.	WillowTree	Jan 2012	#2
I wonder when they first started. In the past ten years? nt	valerief	Jan 2012	#3
1966	onenote	Jan 2012	#9
Rebuttals since 1966? I just remember seeing them within the past ten years.	valerief	Jan 2012	#15
to make us think we still have a fairness doctrine.	unblock	Jan 2012	#4
Ha! Right. Ah, back to the 80's. nt	valerief	Jan 2012	#5
Not the 80s. If you take a second, you can look up the history of the SOTU response.	onenote	Jan 2012	#10
The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in '87. nt	valerief	Jan 2012	#14
Did the dems get one after Bush's SOTUs? (nt)	Nye Bevan	Jan 2012	#6
Yes. It's been done since 1966.	NYC Liberal	Jan 2012	#7
Started in 1966. Was off and on until 1982.	Recovered Repug	Jan 2012	#8
they are always boring, even ones by dems lol nt	msongs	Jan 2012	#11
If I were the Republicans, I'd mail it in.	Old and In the Way	Jan 2012	#12
The Constitution doesn't require a speech by the president, either	DavidDvorkin	Jan 2012	#13
With today's technology, there is no excuse for the President NOT to address	shraby	Jan 2012	#16
true, but the Constitution doesn't call for an address to the nation as a whole	onenote	Jan 2012	#17

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:19 PM

FrenchieCat (67,336 posts)

1. This is when I turn the television off....

thank you for reminding me.

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:19 PM

WillowTree (2,106 posts)

2. It's called tradition.

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:19 PM

valerief (35,681 posts)

3. I wonder when they first started. In the past ten years? nt

Reply to this post

Response to valerief (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:22 PM

onenote (22,030 posts)

9. 1966

Its been going a long time.
And there is no requirement that the President appear in person before a joint session to deliver the SOTU. It can be, and for many years was, delivered in writing.

Reply to this post

Response to onenote (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:31 PM

valerief (35,681 posts)

15. Rebuttals since 1966? I just remember seeing them within the past ten years.

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:32 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Maybe I'm thinking of the rebuttals for EVERYTHING now.

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:19 PM

unblock (23,782 posts)

4. to make us think we still have a fairness doctrine.

Reply to this post

Response to unblock (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

valerief (35,681 posts)

5. Ha! Right. Ah, back to the 80's. nt

Reply to this post

Response to valerief (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:23 PM

onenote (22,030 posts)

10. Not the 80s. If you take a second, you can look up the history of the SOTU response.

Reply to this post

Response to onenote (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:30 PM

valerief (35,681 posts)

14. The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in '87. nt

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

Nye Bevan (10,911 posts)

6. Did the dems get one after Bush's SOTUs? (nt)

Reply to this post

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:21 PM

NYC Liberal (15,601 posts)

7. Yes. It's been done since 1966.

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:22 PM

Recovered Repug (1,518 posts)

8. Started in 1966. Was off and on until 1982.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/RespondStateUnion2.pdf

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:24 PM

msongs (30,559 posts)

11. they are always boring, even ones by dems lol nt

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:26 PM

Old and In the Way (36,257 posts)

12. If I were the Republicans, I'd mail it in.

Why bother? They will only look small and petty in trying to discredit Obama's brilliant speech.

Reply to this post

Response to msongs (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:28 PM

DavidDvorkin (12,071 posts)

13. The Constitution doesn't require a speech by the president, either

And the first few presidents didn't give one. They delivered a brief report in writing.

Reply to this post

Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:10 PM

shraby (15,456 posts)

16. With today's technology, there is no excuse for the President NOT to address

the nation as a whole instead of a written note to congress.

Reply to this post

Response to shraby (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:13 PM

onenote (22,030 posts)

17. true, but the Constitution doesn't call for an address to the nation as a whole

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:15 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Also, the first few SOTUs were delivered in person. Jefferson stopped the practice and it wasn't revived until Woodrow Wilson's presidency. Jimmy Carter delivered his final SOTU in writing rather than in person.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)