As it currently stands, President Trump has decided to hold-off on making his SOTU address because he said he prefers to do so in the House rather than some other venue. If the partial shutdown continues to the point where he changes his mind, then, he might continue to be hampered by Pelosi's non-co-operation.

Pelosi wrote the POTUS on Wednesday:

"I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorising the President's State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened."

So she referred to a concurrent resolution.

A Joint Session is when "the House and Senate adopt a concurrent resolution to meet together to conduct formal business or to hear an address by the president of the United States."

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/joint_session.htm

Note: "Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president and thus do not have the force of law."

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/concurrent_resolution.htm

According to the House Rules, a concurrent resolution is "a means of expressing fact, principles, opinions, and purposes of the two Houses". And are used to authorize "providing for joint session to receive a message from the President".

"A concurrent resolution is binding on neither House until agreed to by both" and it is "not legislative in nature" so a concurrent resolution is not sent to the President for approval".

"A concurrent resolution is not a bill". "Where a choice between a concurrent resolution and a joint resolution is not dictated by law, the House by its vote on consideration of a measure decides which is the appropriate vehicle".

https://rules.house.gov/HouseRulesManual115/jefferson.xml#section-xxi

—

It is interesting that while the President is empowered by the Constitution to convene either the House, the Senate, or both, the congressional response is to vote on a concurrent resolution which is does not have the force of law.

According to Roll Call:

If Pelosi does not agree to a joint session of Congress, Trump could opt to give the speech from the White House or hold an event somewhere else in the country. The president does have an affinity for political rallies, saying he enjoys speaking directly to his supporters.

Some Republicans have suggested that if Pelosi won’t host Trump, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should hold the State of the Union in the Senate chamber. But McConnell cannot host a joint session of Congress without Pelosi’s signoff via House adoption of a concurrent resolution.

The speech does not need to be delivered live before a joint session of Congress or in late January, as has been tradition. The only requirement laid out in the Constitution is that 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.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/state-union-status-unclear-white-house-seeks-keep-jan-29

>>4886114

The playbook was tested and honed on the issue of abortion. Its framework has been used on other issues, not just social issues, the most prominent of late being the marriage issue. Repeatedly the left has made very poor arguments that do not really stand-up. And yet relentless adherence to their playbook has led to victories. The conservative response has been ineffective, politically, although in terms of sound argumentation the conservative side has won repeatedly.

Today we see the same playback on "gender" and on the supremacy of Islam and other issues agrressively pushed onto the national agenda by the lefties.

>>4886130

I do think that the Trumpster likes the traditional use of the House chambers for a stage. Big tradition. But, yes, he could deliver a series of addresses directly to the People through whatever means and from whatever venue he chooses. He could convene both House and Senate and use an alternate venue, for instance.

Pelosi's letter includes a concession to which she did not draw attention: while she can, as Speaker, control which resolutions the House entertains, the President does not need House authorization to convene Congress (for whatever purpose). That authorization is only for use of the House Hall (or chamber). Pelosi is like the gatekeeper on the local Club Hall in town where all the best Doos are done – like the grandest wedding parties for example. It is the venue of choice but it is not the only venue in town.

Her posture of gaining the upperhand is entirely dependent on POTUS preference for the tradition of the House Hall. If he decides that is not as important as, say, a more budget-savvy address, scaled-down, to suite a prolonged shutdown, then, her advantage becomes a disadvantage, really.

If the presence of some effective faction of House Dems (and Senate Dems) is eventually politically advantageous to such a faction, Pelosi's hand is greatly weakened. To gain it back she would have to give-in on making the House Hall available. But if she were to dig-in her heels, her non-cooperation would be all the more highlighted by the presence of that faction of Dems at a different venue to hear the President's address.

Seems to me that the longer this goes on the more vulnerable Pelosi's leadership becomes.

>>4886151

Spell it out, Anon, please. What have you read between these lines?

>>4886196

Yeh, just waiting for the inevitable must make her nervous. In a way he did her a favor by postponing her junket overseas. She has to fight for her leadership, still, and it will turnout that she will need POTUS's help if she wants to stay Speaker. If she remains in charge of House Dems, she will be weaker than even at this moment, because of this.

>>4886218

Would be a surprising half-time show, pre-empting the entertainment. Kek. With the added bonus of kicking the NFL brass in the bucket.