Randi Rhodes wrong on the President's authority to convene a joint session of Congress.

[JDPriestly]

I just heard Randi Rhodes assert that the President does not have the authority to convene Congress in a joint session for his speech on September 7, 2011. Limbaugh apparently is also making that claim, and Boehner is apparently asserting the right to object to the President's calling off that session.

Here is what the Constitution responds to them:

The Constitution, Article II,

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He (the President) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;. . . .

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Could not be clearer. Why are these ignorant Republicans wasting our time on this kind of nonsense?

I hope that every TV network points out this provision of the Constitution this evening on the news. It would be highly partisan in favor of Republicans to fail to do this.

The Constitution has made this a nonpartisan call in the President's favor.

Sorry, Randi and Limbaugh and perhaps Boehner, you are utterly wrong on this.

Please read the Constitution. Please. Please. Please.

[BR_Parkway]

1. So if he's calling them into session, and can adjourn them - does he have

a few minutes to squeeze in a couple of recess appointments before they re-convene? OMG, the look on Boner's face would be priceless!

[Cleita]

2. Since Obama is a constitutional lawyer and probably knows

all about it, I think I will defer to him and what he chooses to do rather than any radio talk show hosts.

[JDPriestly]

3. Yes, Cleita. He knows what he is doing on this, but

the press broo-ha-ha will misinform the people.

I hope Rush Limbaugh is ready to provide an immediate retraction of his erroneous statements.

I would not be surprised if Randi Rhodes was corrected by a caller. If not she will apologize tomorrow. It is not intentional on her part.

[GeorgeGist]

7. Apparently not a very good one ...

judging by his defering to Boehner.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

5. One problem is precedent. When is the last time that the President did call for such a joint

Convening of Congress?

We didn't have such a joint convening of Congress before our "Shock and Awe" strike on Iraq.

We didn't have such an emergency measure taken when the Bush Amdninistration put forth its Bailout proposals.

Is there an emergency facing us over the next ten days that is more serious than either of these situations?

And I'd have loved to have seen Obama, immediately upon his entering the WH, follow FDR's lead (and precedent) and insist on a 100 day all out session of both Houses to address the important issues destroying the economy.


But possibly Obama didn't really want such a thing to happen, as the people he works for, like Tim Geithner, were busy giving away upward of some part of Nine Trillions of dollars to their friends on Wall Street, and I think Obama had marching orders not to interfere with those give aways.

[humbled_opinion]

6. Did you just overlook this part..

"and in Case of Disagreement between them" meaning a time set by both the Senate and the House not originally set by the President...


In any event this is pure political theater.... Obama doesn't want to do it Thursday because its the NFL kick off, Wednesday was already scheduled for the Pubs debate and Obama and his people knew that...

This seems purely political and petulant IMO....