What if They Gave a State of the Union Address and the President Didn't Show Up?

Constituents of some districts will not have House representation at the State of the Union Address on January 30th. The following congresspeople will boycott.

Frederica Wilson (FL)
Maxine Waters (CA)
John Lewis (GA)
Pramila Jayapal (WA)
Earl Blumenauer (OR)

All Democrats, so far. It’s a safe bet that there are more to come. Most say they are skipping the address due to President Trump’s sh*thole remarks – which remain in the he-said/he-didn’t-say category.

But guess what: they don’t have to be at the address. None of the representatives or senators are required to be at the Capitol during the speech. The vice-president doesn’t have to be there, either.

And get this: neither does the president.

Here’s what the US Constitution says about the piece of communication called the State of the Union address.

He 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; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

Emphasis mine. From time to time. Nothing about how.

Thomas Jefferson sent memos to Congress.* Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his from the Oval Office – where a wheelchair could be much more easily concealed.

Oh sure, the SOTU is replete with tradition and ceremony, but there’s nothing in the rule book which mandates that a president’s SOTU must be in person or at the Capitol.

John Lewis

I would die of laughter if the president Tweeted/YouTubed/emailed his address, because you know the outrage would be FIERCE -- mostly because he would deny the boycotters a virtue-signaling opportunity.

I think he should do it. What do you think?

*A practice which lasted up to Woodrow Wilson.

Every Tuesday and Saturday, I blog at the award-winning DaTechGuyBlog. Latest post: The New Fun Tastes Funny

When you hit the Tip Jar, it helps pays for: A Roof Over My Head, Food, Gasoline, Car Insurance, the writing of My Next Book(s), and Utilities--especially Internet and COFFEE! Yes, coffee is a utility. 

Second Rule of Holes

From Wired.com:

A federal judge today upheld a President Barack Obama administration policy allowing authorities along the U.S. border to seize and search laptops, smartphones and other electronic devices for any reason. 

The decision (.pdf) by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York comes as laptops, and now smartphones, have become virtual extensions of ourselves, housing everything from email to instant-message chats to our papers and effects. 

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge nearly three years ago, claiming U.S. border officials should have reasonable suspicion to search gadgets along the border because of the data they store. But Judge Korman said the so-called “border exemption,” in which people can be searched for no reason at all along the border, continues to apply in the digital age. 

Alarmingly, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.

That the suit was brought on behalf of an American Muslim traveling from Canada by rail to his parents’ home in New York State, matters not. He's still an American and if it can be done to him, it can be done to the rest of us.

An illegal cavity search is more honest, if less subtle, and this is merely the flip side of that coin. Think I’m…ahem…stretching an analogy? Read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution again:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It seems that all levels of government have taken the First Rule of Holes and bent it over flipped it on its head. The New Rule of Holes goes something like this:

Any physical or electronic orifice you own belongs to us and we will keep digging in it/them until we find something or until we get tired. Now spread ‘em!

This will not end well. Happy 2014!

(Thanks to Instapundit)