Does Article II, section 3 give the President the authority to

[JDPriestly]

convene a session of Congress at a time and place that he chooses?

Alexander Hamilton advised Washington on this:

CONVENING CONGRESS: hamilton to washington 1 - Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 8 <1774>
Edition used:

The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 8.

Author: Alexander Hamilton
Editor: Henry Cabot Lodge

Part of: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), 12 vols.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.
. . . .


2½ Miles from Philadelphia,

October 24, 1793.

As to the right of the President to convene Congress out of the ordinary course, I think it stands as follows—“;he may on extraordinary occasions convene both houses of Congress or either of them.” These are the words of the Constitution. Nothing is said as to time or place—nothing restrictive as to either; I therefore think they both stand on the same footing. The discretion of the President extends to place as well as time. The reason of the thing as well as the words of the Constitution would extend it to both. The usual seat of the government may be in possession of an enemy, it may be swallowed up by an earthquake.

I know of no law that abridges in this respect the discretion of the President—if a law could abridge a constitutional discretion of either branch.

But the doubt with me is whether the “extraordinary occasion” mentioned in the Constitution be not some unforeseen occurrence in the public affairs, which renders it advisable for the public service to convene Congress at some time different from that which the Constitution or some law has established; in other words, to anticipate their ordinary meeting, to have a special session for a special object of public business out of the pre-established course.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92634&layout=html&Itemid=27

The discussion focused on whether Washington could convene Congress at a place other than D.C. because of yellow fever there.

Truman did it and embarrassed the Republicans in Congress to boot (a story your Democratic father may have told you if you are of my generation):

President Harry Truman convened Congress in the summer of 1948.

Nineteen forty-eight was an election year. Truman, a Democrat, had been promoting many progressive and forward-thinking policies. The Republicans, in an attempt to appear progressive themselves, tried to outdo Truman by proposing policies that some said were borderline socialistic.

Truman called their bluff. He convened Congress and told the Republicans to get busy and pass legislation implementing their party's policies.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_has_the_President_used_the_power_to_convene_congress

Given that precedent -- that Hamilton would say that Obama has the power to convene a special session of Congress when OBAMA chooses, and Truman's political success in calling Republicans' bluff by calling a session and then challenging them to pass legislation that they really did not want to pass, I think Obama should stick to his principles and call this session when and where he wants to. He could convene them in the White House if he chose to do so.

During the summer session, the Republicans failed to pass one single piece of legislation implementing any part of their policy.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_has_the_President_used_the_power_to_convene_congress#ixzz1WpFaAw84

[hack89]

1. "Joint session of congress requires a concurrent resolution from both House and Senate to meet."

Congress has the power to say no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_session_of_the_United_States_Congress

[JDPriestly]

4. The Constitution's specific grant of this power would pre-empt

any law or rule or other provision conflicting with the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton wrote his letter during Washington's presidency. You can't get any more solid basis for the interpretation of this provision of the Constitution than that.

[hack89]

8. You are confusing two separate issues.

Congress is already scheduled to convene next Wednesday.

A joint session is not the same as convening - precedent and tradition require a resolution.

The President can convene Congress (like Truman) but he cannot force it to actually assemble (which is what happened with Truman).

[JDPriestly]

22. You are correct, the president convenes the joint session and

then the members of Congress decide whether to attend.

But the president is within his authority when he calls a joint session, and Hamilton, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and a contemporary of Washington and the drafters of the Constitution, stated that the president is not limited as to the time or place at which he may convene Congress or call a joint session.

Read it Article II, section 3, I think. Just read the text.

The specific language of Article II regarding the President's power to convene a joint session of Congress will be interpreted as more binding than the general authority given to Congress to make its own rules.

I don't believe there is a specific provision giving Congress the authority to convene although it is understood. Actually, the 20th Amendment requires Congress to convene once a year at least -- in January. So that is the most specific grant of the authority to Congress to convene its own sessions that there is in the Constitution. Whereas, the President is granted a very specific authority to convene a joint session of congress, in "extraordinary circumstances."

It appears that defining "extraodinary circumstances" is pretty much left up to the President.

[FBaggins]

9. Nope. The Constitution also "specifically grants" Congress the power to make their own rules.

Once they convene, their own rules control.

IOW, he can convene them (though it's still a question whether he could pick the place), but that doesn't give him the power to speak to them (joint session or otherwise).

[JDPriestly]

21. Did you read the provision.

The specific grant of this authority to the president would supersede the grant of the authority of Congress to make its own rules.

As you well know, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, section 2 (I believe) requires the congress to convene in January of each year.

The Constitution specifically gives the President the authority to convene a joint session of Congress in extraordinary circumstances -- which certainly are present now since Congress claims that we have to pay our debts but refuses to authorize the payment or raise the money to pay them. That is, without doubt, an extraordinary circumstance of the making of the Republican majority in the House.

And let's face it, the largest part of the debt the Republicans are whining about is due to the debts run up during Republican presidencies in order to shore up the popularity of the Republican presidents by presenting the pretense of a healthy, growing economy.

[FBaggins]

26. Yes I did. But you appear to be reading something that isn't there.

The specific grant of this authority

Does not include the power to adress them in that session.

would supersede the grant of the authority of Congress to make its own rules.

Because you want it to? One constitutional provision (especially one that is misapplied) does not trump another.

The Constitution specifically gives the President the authority to convene a joint session of Congress in extraordinary circumstances

"One or both" is not the same thing as "the two together". A joint session is entirely different (and again, would not give him the power to adress them).

That is, without doubt, an extraordinary circumstance

That point is not a debate. The President gets to decide what he thinks counts as "extraordinary". If they don't like it they can impeach him (since they alone get to decide what rises to that standard).

[JDPriestly]

32. What is your historical and legal authority?

I have cited Alexander Hamilton and further down I cite the Federalist papers.

He did not consider this to be a provision that would diminish the doctrine of separation of powers.

What is your authority on this. The Constitution speaks for itself.

And yes, when laws or provisions of the Constitution conflict, the specific provision is interpreted to hold over the general provision.

This is a very specific grant of authority to the president.

And Alexander Hamilton advised President Washington that it permitted the President to do anything that it did not prohibit, specifically, for Hamilton, with regard to the time and place at which the president convened Congress.

So, you are suggesting that the Constitution specifically gives the president the authority to convene both houses of Congress and just leave them to figure out why he convened them?

I don't think so. That would not make any sense, especially within the historical context.

The Constitution was written at a time when people met and talked. They did not have the technology that we have today. The president could not tell Congress how to vote, but this provision applies in extraordinary circumstances, and in such circumstances, it would be expected that the president speak personally to Congress who represent the American people.

Good heavens. That Congress would question the authority in this area is just incredible to me. It is completely unpatriotic and uncooperative.

[FBaggins]

40. You can also cite the menu from Burger King if you like. It carries no more weight.

Hamilton correctly speaks of calling an adjourned Congress back into session. Nobody here has questioned that and that would not be a violation of the separation of powers. The President CAN do that (if they were actually adjourned, which they aren't). What Hamilton does NOT say is that the President gets to address that session or gets to mandate a joint session.

What is your authority on this. The Constitution speaks for itself.

Yes. It's really very clear... but you're not allowing yourself to see it. You're blinded by your preferred outcome, not by the Constitutional principals. You don't like the fact that the Congress thumbed its nose at the White House and you want the President to be able to spank them and put them back in their place. That's a fine motivation (and one that many of us share), but it's not a Constitutional principal.

And Alexander Hamilton advised President Washington that it permitted the President to do anything that it did not prohibit, specifically, for Hamilton, with regard to the time and place at which the president convened Congress.

That's fine. He can call them to New York if he wants to and they can fight that out in court if they disagree (Hamilton not being binding precedent). What he can't do is perform ANY role within those proceedings. He can't give a speech. He can't call for a quorum vote. He can't pick his nose and ask for it to become part of the record. Any role that he plays is only by their courtesy.

So, you are suggesting that the Constitution specifically gives the president the authority to convene both houses of Congress and just leave them to figure out why he convened them?

He can tell them why he convened them if he likes. He just has to do it by letter or speech in his own bailiwick. He can't do it in the well of the House without their invitation.

Good heavens. That Congress would question the authority in this area is just incredible to me. It is completely unpatriotic and uncooperative.

Nonsense. That you would miss the authority in this area is what's incredible. When it comes to the Congress of the United States, the President is not the authority.

[JDPriestly]

42. Federalist Papers, No. 77 -- Hamilton

The only remaining powers of the Executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union; in recommending to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient; in convening them, or either branch, upon extraordinary occasions; in adjourning them when they cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment; in receiving ambassadors and other public ministers; in faithfully executing the laws; and in commissioning all the officers of the United States.

Except some cavils about the power of convening EITHER house of the legislature, and that of receiving ambassadors, no objection has been made to this class of authorities; nor could they possibly admit of any. It required, indeed, an insatiable avidity for censure to invent exceptions to the parts which have been excepted to. In regard to the power of convening either house of the legislature, I shall barely remark, that in respect to the Senate at least, we can readily discover a good reason for it. AS this body has a concurrent power with the Executive in the article of treaties, it might often be necessary to call it together with a view to this object, when it would be unnecessary and improper to convene the House of Representatives. As to the reception of ambassadors, what I have said in a former paper will furnish a sufficient answer.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_77.html

[FBaggins]

50. You've not spammed the same thing multiple times... and don't realize that it refutes your position.

He is laying out the limits of the executive powers in this regard. Nowhere in his list is the power to address them in their own chamber in contravention of their explicit Constitutional mandate to set the rules of their own proceedings.

If you read the rest of 77, you'll see that he's refuting those who fear that the president will have too much authority. He's making clear that this isn't the case. That he is limited to reconvene them and send them information for their consideration.

[JDPriestly]

57. And Washington gave that information in person.

Jefferson began a tradition of informing Congress in writing -- because Jefferson was very shy.

Do you have any authority other than your own opinion that interprets the section.

I drew my conclusion because the two powers -- to inform Congress on the State of the Union and to present proposals for legislation and the power to convene both houses or one house are adjoining phrases.

Hamilton gives the example that the authority to convene Congress might be used in the case of the approval of a treaty.

[FBaggins]

61. So when Reagan wanted to talk to Congress about the Contras in '86 and Tip Oneil told him "no"

You think that Reagan could have stomped on that, eh?

O'Neil didn't try to shift the date... he just rejected the President's request.

Because he had that power... and Reagan didn't.

[msongs]

2. he did "stick to his principles", deferring to republicans. Notice he rarely says "republicans"? nt

[LiberalFighter]

3. Back then they did not meet nearly year round.

[JDPriestly]

10. The issue was whether Washington had the right to

move the Congress out of D.C. due to the yellow fever epidemic. Alexander Hamilton's answer was that he did. Congress, I believe, then agreed that he could set the time and place of the session of Congress.

The government also found itself changed, both on the state and national level. Because many thought it was unconstitutional to meet outside of Philadelphia (this based on the fear of a future autocratic president, like the king of France at Versailles), the Congress didn't meet in the time of the plague, when its nation needed it the most. To avoid any future problems, congress granted the president the power to move a meeting in a time of grave danger and threat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Fever_Epidemic_of_1793

In addition

On 27 occasions, presidents have called both houses into session to deal with a crisis. The most recent of these special sessions -- and the first one since 1856 -- met at the behest of President Harry S. Truman on this day in 1948.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5104.html

Joint sessions of Congress - with both houses present - occur when the president gives his State of the Union address or otherwise appears before Congress. They are also held to conduct formal business or to count electoral college votes in a presidential election.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congsessions.htm

Obama is within his rights in convening a joint session of Congress at a time and place of his choice. Of course, he cannot be unreasonable about it, but he is not being unreasonable. Congress is full of Tea-Party crazies. If it weren't Obama would not have to convene the joint session.

[tritsofme]

5. If Congress was in recess (it hasn't been all summer) he could call a special session

The House and Senate have held pro-forma sessions all summer to block Obama's recess appointments, so they have never technically recessed and there is no special session to call.

He could not convene a joint session or have the power to address it without Congress' consent, if that was what this was getting at.

[JDPriestly]

12. You are wrong and should do the research.

Joint sessions of Congress - with both houses present - occur when the president gives his State of the Union address or otherwise appears before Congress. They are also held to conduct formal business or to count electoral college votes

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congsessions.htm

This has happened before.

In addition to State of the Union Addresses, Presidents deliver addresses to Congress on specific subjects. The first such speech was delivered by John Adams on the subject of U.S. relations with France. The most popular subjects for such addresses are economic, military and foreign policy issues.

Since 1981 some of these addresses, such as Bill Clinton's 1993 Economic Address, George W. Bush's Budget Message of 2001, and Barack Obama's joint session speech of 2009 are sometimes inaccurately labeled as State of Union Addresses. Barack Obama also asked for a special joint session of Congress September 7, 2011 to address job creation plans. The president agreed to move the date to September 8, 2011 following a request by House Speaker John Boehner citing logistical concerns with regard to security preparations ahead of a presidential address. <7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_session_of_the_United_States_Congress

And I mentioned before that Truman convened a session of Congress in the summer of 1948 and when they were unable to pass any legislation to resolve issues of importance to the country, won and election on the slogan "Do nothing Congress." Let this be a lesson to lurking Republicans on DU.

The Tea-Baggers are a bunch of Do-Nothings if there ever was one.

[FBaggins]

13. Physician, heal thyself.

Joint sessions don't "occur" because the persident is giving the SOTU.

The President must be invited in order to speak to Congress (yes, including the SOTU). The Constitution requires the President to give Congress a report on the state of the union... it does not require him to do it in person or require the Congress to give him the podium and listen.

The point you need to "get" is that these are co-equal branches of government. The executive cannot call up the legislative branch and say "I'm going to come lecture you and you're going to sit still and listen".

[JDPriestly]

23. The Constitution pretty much gives him that authority.

Normally, there is a polite agreement between friends. It is a sign of the times that the President is forced to simply pick a time.

The Do-Nothing Republican Congress is simply irresponsible in its conduct of the nation's business. That is why the President has to call a joint session.

And that is probably why Congress gave the president this authority.

He cannot force the members of congress to appear, of course.
And he cannot force them to vote as he wishes.

But he can convene a joint session or a session of one house. The fact that the Constitution specifies "joint" and just one house means that the President does have this authority even if there has never been in the history of our country such a disrespectful and unpatriotic Congress as the present one.

[FBaggins]

25. You asked the question in the OP and have clearly been answered "no"

yet you continue to claim that constitution DOES give him that authority.

Once again, the constitution does allow him to convene them. That is NOT the same thing as giving him the power to speak to them when he chooses to.

The fact that the Constitution specifies "joint"

Except that it doesn't. The word "joint" does not appear in the Constitution.

[JDPriestly]

33. both houses of Congress or one house.

Where is your legal authority?

How can you be so sure that your interpretation is more correct than mine?

[FBaggins]

39. The legal authority is very simple.

Your interpretation implies that the President of the United States has the power to tell Congress "I have something I want to say to you and you have to sit there and listen"... mine relies on the notion that the Constitution established co-equal branches of government that don't have the authority to order each other around within their own spheres.

Now which one matches whatever civics classes you've attended?

We don't have a king. We have a chief executive... and the Congress isn't part of the executive branch or answerable to it.

both houses of Congress or one house.

Yes. He can convene one or both houses. He can "call them into session". Those terms actually mean specific things. "Put them in a room of my choosing and forcing them to listen to me" is not part of the definition.

[JDPriestly]

41. Federalist Papers, No. 77 -- Hamilton's view

The only remaining powers of the Executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union; in recommending to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient; in convening them, or either branch, upon extraordinary occasions; in adjourning them when they cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment; in receiving ambassadors and other public ministers; in faithfully executing the laws; and in commissioning all the officers of the United States.

Except some cavils about the power of convening EITHER house of the legislature, and that of receiving ambassadors, no objection has been made to this class of authorities; nor could they possibly admit of any. It required, indeed, an insatiable avidity for censure to invent exceptions to the parts which have been excepted to. In regard to the power of convening either house of the legislature, I shall barely remark, that in respect to the Senate at least, we can readily discover a good reason for it. AS this body has a concurrent power with the Executive in the article of treaties, it might often be necessary to call it together with a view to this object, when it would be unnecessary and improper to convene the House of Representatives. As to the reception of ambassadors, what I have said in a former paper will furnish a sufficient answer.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_77.html

[FBaggins]

47. Repeating an error does not make it any more persuasive.

Once again, forcing the legislature to return from adjournment is an entirely different class of power than participating in their constitutional function.

If the president wants to go to war and Congress is not in session. He can call them back and they must do it. . It doesn't matter that that's the reason for the call. Same thing with the reason for being able to call just one body back. When the legislature used to go months between sessions, the President might need the Senate to advise and consent on an appointment/treaty/etc, so he has the power to call just the Senate. But he can't address them on the subject without their invitation.

You have provided good and sufficient proof that the President has the power to call the Congress back from a break that they aren't on right now. Nobody has questioned it, so it's time to stop trying to prove it. What you keep missing is that this has nothing to do with what you want to use it for. He isn't a member of the legislative branch and has no power within their proceedings. He can't enter the room and go to the podium and address them because it isn't his place to do so. He has no privilege in that room.

[JDPriestly]

54. The two powers -- to inform Congress (which was originally given

by Washington in a speech to Congress) and the power to convene Congress are granted next to each other divided only by a semi-colon.

Please read Article 77 of the Federalist Papers.

The separation of powers doctrine also gives each branch a means to check the other.

The Congress is given all kinds of power to limit and investigate the president's administration.

Similarly, the president is given these powers to limit the conduct of Congress.

As we well know, the president also has the power of the veto. So Congress is an equal branch, not a superior branch to the executive. These provisions and my interpretation of them are not in conflict with the separation of powers.

No one seems to have any authority that opposes my interpretation. I have not checked in a library. I have a book on Constitutional Law by Nowak and Rotunda, but I have not checked whether it says anything about this. I will.

[FBaggins]

62. You might want to check the function of that semicolon in the rest of the Constitution.

Not that "being next to each other" is a constitutional principal.

But it hardly matters since "the power" to inform Congress implies no ability to govern their process. They are under no obligation to provide him with a soapbox, he has his own.

And yet again, Congress is already convened. The President has no power to "call a meeting".

Similarly, the president is given these powers to limit the conduct of Congress.

That must have been omitted from my copy of the Constitution. Can you cite it? He's given ZERO power "limit" their "conduct".

No one seems to have any authority that opposes my interpretation.

Sorry. That's fantasy on your part. Your unwillingness to accept multiple examples while insisting on nonexistent interpretations of your own citations is not particularly persuasive. You see "inform" and imagine that it means "lecture in person". You see "both houses" and imagine that that's the same thing as a "joint session". You further imagine that these nonexistent powers are clearly enumerated while the Congress' clear power to set her own rules for her own procedings is somehow vague. None of that has any basis in reality and no president has ever tried it.

[tritsofme]

16. Um, where did I dispute that joint sessions occur?

The president simply cannot compel a joint session. He is formally invited by Congress for the State of the Union address or other times such as this jobs speech.

Also, as I said in my previous post, Congress has not been out of session all summer, making this point even more moot. You cannot call Congress out of recess and into a special session when they are already in session. And even then the power to call them into session stops there, he can't force a co-equal branch of government to do anything else.

You are just very wrong and misunderstanding lots of things here.

[JDPriestly]

24. Where in the text of the Constitution does it say that the

President' authority specifically granted in Article II, section 3 to call a joint session of congress in extraordinary circumstances is in any way dependent on the approval of congress. Please cite the provision.

If you can't find one, then I am right.

Why can't you simply read the Constitution? It's right there in black and white and presidents have done this before.

If Congress has played a role in picking a date, that has been a courtesy, not a requirement.

[FBaggins]

27. You keep using that word ("specifically"). I do not think it means what you think it means.

:-)

Nowhere does the constitution grant him the authority to "call a joint session of congress".

It, instead, gives him the power to convene both houses (or either). The term "both houses" is used multiple times in the Constitution and never means "acting jointly".

If Congress has played a role in picking a date, that has been a courtesy, not a requirement.

You have it backwards. If the President has ever spoken to Congress in the well of the House, that has been a courtesy, not a requirement. They are a co-equal branch of government, not his subordinates.

[Recovered Repug]

28. Where in Article II, section 3 does it state

the president has the power to call for a "joint session"? He can call for one or both houses to convene but, congress is a separate and equal branch of government. The president's power over the legislature is very limited. Separation of powers, checks and balances and all that sort of thing. What they (congress) chooses do in any special session is up to congress.

Obama could have called for congress to convene, but would have still required an invitation to speak to a joint session.

[JDPriestly]

31. Do you have any legal authority for your opinion?

The provision seems quite clear to me. I quoted the Federalist Papers on it below. And then Hamilton's letter to Washington seems to interpret that provision as permitting the president to have full discretion under that provision.

[Recovered Repug]

35. You didn't do well Civics class, did you?

Congress does not work FOR the president. While the president can call one or both into session (like Truman), he can not control what they do (like Truman). Congress is a separate and equal branch.

[JDPriestly]

43. Actually, I did extremely well.

The only remaining powers of the Executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union; in recommending to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient; in convening them, or either branch, upon extraordinary occasions; in adjourning them when they cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment; in receiving ambassadors and other public ministers; in faithfully executing the laws; and in commissioning all the officers of the United States.

Except some cavils about the power of convening EITHER house of the legislature, and that of receiving ambassadors, no objection has been made to this class of authorities; nor could they possibly admit of any. It required, indeed, an insatiable avidity for censure to invent exceptions to the parts which have been excepted to. In regard to the power of convening either house of the legislature, I shall barely remark, that in respect to the Senate at least, we can readily discover a good reason for it. AS this body has a concurrent power with the Executive in the article of treaties, it might often be necessary to call it together with a view to this object, when it would be unnecessary and improper to convene the House of Representatives. As to the reception of ambassadors, what I have said in a former paper will furnish a sufficient answer.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_77.html

Federalist Papers #77

[Recovered Repug]

48. Your posts continue to support the fact that the president has

the power to convene either or both houses of congress. This power is not in dispute. What you have not shown is any stated power authorizing a president to address congress without their permission. Find that power specifically stated and get back to me.

[JDPriestly]

55. Do you have a source that states that he does not.

The authority to provide a state of the union speech and to inform Congress and to present ideas to Congress (which was done in the presence of Congress by Washington) are in adjacent phrases divided by a semi-colon.

I will check further on this because I find it interesting.

So far no one has presented any authority supporting an interpretation that would necessarily prohibit the president from convening Congress to give information.

[Recovered Repug]

56. The correct question is: Do you have any source

that specifically states that he does? Congress and the president are 2 separate branches with specified powers. Nothing you have posted states or suggests that the president has the power to address congress whenever he wants. In short, they stay on their own turf unless invited.

[FBaggins]

49. Then they owe you your money back.

:-)

Hamilton's purpose for the papers was to provide a defense of the Constitution as consistent with the principals of a republican form of government. One of the key principals is that of a divided set of powers between legislative/judicial/exucutive functions. To provide "checks and balances" as it were. You need to step back and take a long look at what you're proposing. You want to demonstrate that the President can tell Congress to sit down and listen to him because darn it... he's the President.

That just isn't the system that Hamilton was defending. It more accurately describes the one that some feared and that he rejected.

[tritsofme]

29. I am afraid that you are simply mistaken. And you are being rather stubborn about it.

The text you refer to:

He may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them

This says nothing of addressing a joint session of Congress, only that the president may convene or bring the Congress into session. This does not give the president the power to assemble the Congress in one room and talk at them.

The president has to be invited to speak to a joint session of Congress. No president has ever been before Congress without one. Presidents coming to Congress to personally deliver State of the Union addresses is a relatively new phenomenon, the constitutional requirement previously being fulfilled in written form.

[JDPriestly]

30. Authority please?

George Washington gave the first State of the Union address on January 8, 1790 in New York City, then the provisional U.S. capital. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchical (similar to the Speech from the Throne). Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson re-established the practice despite some initial controversy. However, there have been exceptions to this rule. Presidents during the latter half of the 20th century have sent written State of the Union addresses. The last President to do this was Jimmy Carter in 1981.<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_address

As you probably know, Woodrow Wilson took up the tradition that Washington started and Jefferson broke of giving the State of the Union address in person to Congress.

Where is the legal authority stating that the Constitutional provision cannot be interpreted to give the president the authority to convene a joint session of Congress for a speech?

Legal authority, please, some judicial interpretation of that provision of the Constitution.

Because, Alexander Hamilton seems to have believed that the provision granted the President complete discretion as to any aspect of the authority given to him that was not specifically denied to him.

[tritsofme]

38. Authority? I have already quoted the Constitution.

I will do so again:

He may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them

Now this should be easy for you, show me where there is any mention of a joint session I don't see how you could possibly construe this to mean that Congress is compelled to receive him as a guest either, only that Congress be reconvened. Your whole argument is just very strange.

Your stubbornness here when you are so clearly in the wrong is making you look like a fool.

[JDPriestly]

45. I have posted Hamilton's letter to Washington. Here is his commentary in the Federalist Papers.

The only remaining powers of the Executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union; in recommending to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient; in convening them, or either branch, upon extraordinary occasions; in adjourning them when they cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment; in receiving ambassadors and other public ministers; in faithfully executing the laws; and in commissioning all the officers of the United States.

Except some cavils about the power of convening EITHER house of the legislature, and that of receiving ambassadors, no objection has been made to this class of authorities; nor could they possibly admit of any. It required, indeed, an insatiable avidity for censure to invent exceptions to the parts which have been excepted to. In regard to the power of convening either house of the legislature, I shall barely remark, that in respect to the Senate at least, we can readily discover a good reason for it. AS this body has a concurrent power with the Executive in the article of treaties, it might often be necessary to call it together with a view to this object, when it would be unnecessary and improper to convene the House of Representatives. As to the reception of ambassadors, what I have said in a former paper will furnish a sufficient answer.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_77.html

[tritsofme]

53. Why do you persist in conflating "addressing" and "convening"?

They are not analogous terms. Are you being intentionally obtuse? No one disputes the president can convene a session of Congress when they are adjourned.

What you cited in no way supports your bizarre assertion that the President can compel Congress to assemble and listen to him talk. He can send them a letter if he wishes, but he has no authority to address the House chamber without an invitation. Not to even mention that a joint session cannot exist without a concurrent resolution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. You are confusing convening Congress with forcing Congress to hold a Joint Session

[JDPriestly]

18. OK, Freddie, elementary lesson on the Constitution

In general, in law, when two provisions of law conflict, the more specifically applicable to the situation will be applied.

As you may know, Article I of the Constitution sets forth the powers and the limitations and organizational specifics of Congress.

Article II does the same for the president.

The powers of Congress listed in Article I are numerous and in some cases rather general and the list is long.

The specifically listed powers of the President are fewer.

Here is the text authorizing the President first to inform the Congress of the State of the Union "from time to time." Note it does not limit the President to a statement only once a year, and it does not prohibit or require an oral statement. That would probably be interpreted as meaning he has a choice.

Then read on to the part we are discussing here: "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." The President's power extends to convening both Houses or either one of them. Certainly, Congress can also call a joint session. But the Constitution specifically grants the President this authority.

There is no limitation, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out, as to the Presidents' choice of the time. The Constitution makes it quite clear that the President has the discretion to pick the time, especially since the President is expressly granted the authority to choose the time of adjournment from such a special session whether of the joint congress or one house.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

The Constitution is on line and available. Read it.

[Major Hogwash]

36. That's very interesting.

But, President Obama already moved the date of his speech.

I think that you're right and that President Obama agrees with you about this.
He backed down to let Boehner look petty.
That's what I think he did.

[JDPriestly]

46. That is what he did.

[Major Hogwash]

59. And it makes the entire GOP party look petty at the same time.

From Boehner to Cantor to Walsh, who said he wasn't going because the president is an idiot.

Unbelievable the amount of disrespect this President has put up with for the last 2 and a half years.

[Major Hogwash]

37. I think you have made a very good point.

But, now the Republicans will have to perform like circus bears on Wednesday night or President Obama is going to hand them their asses on Thursday.

[hack89]

7. Apples and oranges

Obama asked for a joint session of Congress to make an speech. Congress is already scheduled to convene next Wednesday.

Truman forced Congress to convene. He did not have the power to actually make them assemble or do anything. Which is what he wanted - he was able to campaign on a "do nothing Congress" platform. It was pure political theater.

[JDPriestly]

15. Did you read the constitutional provision and the letter from Alexander

Hamilton? What do you think Scalia would rule upon reading those items? I think he would say that it was the intent of the authors of the Constitution that the president should be able to convene Congress and communicate with them in this way when he wanted to and at the time and place that he wanted to, especially considering Congress granted the authority at that time.

The right to convene a joint session of Congress for the purpose of speaking to Congress is pretty well established. And it is not the same as the authority to inform Congress on the State of the Union. It is in addition to that authority. Read the Constitution, please. Then read Hamilton (one of the authors of the Federalist Papers) and then look at history.

Article II, section 3 (sorry, I think I said section 9)

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

[FBaggins]

17. You need to learn the same lesson that Bush never learned.

The President is not superior to the Congress... particularly in their own house.

[Llewlladdwr]

11. What difference does it make? NT

[JNinWB]

14. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. This is DU...

...a little knowledge is about the best you can expect.

[JDPriestly]

20. Do you disagree with me. If so, what is your legal argument on this.

I would be interested to read your citations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "convene" is completely different from "address"

The former means to cause them to come together. The latter means to speak to them. I don't know how convene can be interrupted to mean the president can compel congress to listen to him speak. Two entirely different concepts.

Obama could convene congress in the middle of the New Jersey sewer system (hmmmmm...) if he so chose but regardless of where he had them meet he couldn't force them to give him an audience.

But all this is moot. There is a precedent for congress not allowing the president to address congress and even that is immaterial. Unless Obama has a super-awesome jobs plan this whole episode will only magnify the disappointment. If it is super-awesome than the GOP will suffer all the more.

Theory vs. practice is as different as convene vs. address.

[JDPriestly]

51. This provision speaks both to the president's authority to inform Congress

from time to time and the president's authority to convene both or either house on extraordinary occasions.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

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.

www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

The president is not limited to the state of the union speech. Yes, for many years, the state of the union was a written presentation, but Washington spoke directly to Congress. Jefferson is noted for his shyness and changed the tradition to the presentation of a written document. I believe that Woodrow Wilson reverted to the original tradition that Washington had set.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I very much agree the president is not confined merely to the SOTU address

But this is just an address; a speech. If he had a specific proposal for them to vote on that would be another matter because the section you cite (BTW - citations are awesome. So many argue only by assertion. Thank-you) says, "recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

But absent any recommendations it is just a speech and congress is a co-equal branch; they do not sit around waiting for the president to give them their agenda. Similarly congress cannot order the president to appear. Certainly Bush was not constitutionally entitled to treat congress as his handmaiden (would that they had not volunteered themselves).

Again, thank-you for using actual points to back-up your claims. It really does make a discussion more of a discussion and less of an argument. That is always refreshing and much more pleasant.

:hi:

[NYC Liberal]

44. Yes, he can force them to convene. But he cannot force them to allow him to address Congress.

Congress - and only Congress - determines the rules for who is allowed to appear on the House or Senate floor, who is allowed to address either body. The Vice President, for example, is not allowed to engage in debate or speak on the Senate floor despite being President of the Senate.

So even though the president can call them into session, he can be denied the privilege of addressing them.

TRUMAN DID NOT ADDRESS CONGRESS WHEN HE CALLED THEM INTO SESSION.

[JDPriestly]

52. Again, what is your authority for this?

Here is the full text of the provision.

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.

www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

The two powers -- to give Congress Information and recommend measures for their consideration and the president's authority to convene Congress are stated in the same sentence divided only by a semi-colon.

No. 77 of the Federalist Papers also deals with this.

I don't see any comment that would compel the interpretation you are proposing.

[NYC Liberal]

58. And yet nothing there says the president can speak on the floor of Congress

at any time he wants to. Nor is there anything that requires him to.

Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

As an example of this, the Constitution says that the Vice President is President of the Senate. Yet the President of the Senate is not allowed, by Senate rules, to address the Senate or engage in debate.

The president can fulfill his requirement to provide "Information of the State of the Union" and "recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" by sending a written letter or by providing a transcript of a speech he gives elsewhere. In fact, that is exactly what presidents did for over 100 years until Woodrow Wilson's presidency. Congress does not have to allow the president to address them even for the purpose.