The State of the Union address has changed in both format and tone over the years. Don Wolfensberger argues here that we should strive to "recapture what the Founders had in mind about presidents recommending such measures to Congress from time to time as may be necessary and expedient."
President Thomas Jefferson broke with a brief but already established precedent in 1801 by refusing to deliver in person the president鈥檚 annual message to Congress as presidents George Washington and John Adams had done over the previous 12 years. Instead, he began the practice of submitting a written message to Congress 鈥揳 precedent followed by his successors for the next 111-years. Jefferson鈥檚 reason for discontinuing the personal appearance? He thought the president鈥檚 speech to Congress smacked too much of the British sovereign鈥檚 鈥渟peech from the throne鈥 at the opening of parliament, laying out the government鈥檚 program for the coming year.
Yes, there was a whiff of partisanship in his decision. Jefferson thought Washington and Adams both demonstrated monarchist tendencies and were pulling their Federalist Party and the nation back into a quasi-regal state with all the pomp and pageantry practiced by their colonial masters. The Jeffersonian Republicans won the election of 1800 by stressing a more populist theme of returning government to the people while railing against the exalted airs of the Federalists.
Still, the framers of the Constitution obviously had in mind something similar to the British practice by specifying that the president 鈥渟hall, 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.鈥 But there was no requirement that the president deliver the administration鈥檚 proposed legislative agenda in person, or that it be confined to a single document or appearance.
Thomas Jefferson would be dumbfounded and clearly vindicated today upon observing all the extra pomp and puffery surrounding the president鈥檚 State of the Union addresses.
That came into clear focus when President Woodrow 浪花直播, in 1913, resumed the precedent of personal appearances before joint sessions of Congress, not just to deliver his annual message, but some 20 special messages as well over his eight years in office.
While I originally dismissed Jefferson鈥檚 objections as an overreaction, I have, since, in a column published elsewhere in 2011, come to the conclusion that he had a legitimate point. As I put it then, 鈥減erhaps I had been so blinded by the pageantry and entertainment value of this annual state ritual that I never clearly saw how much it diminishes Congress.鈥
This really is the 鈥渋mperial presidency writ large,鈥 and it gets larger with every passing year. It began as a simple joint session of the two houses of Congress, but over time seating was added on the House chamber鈥檚 floor for Cabinet members, the Supreme Court, the military joint chiefs, foreign ambassadors. And, in the gallery, were added the president鈥檚 picks of citizen heroes seated alongside the first lady.
Meantime, the originally intended recipients of the presidents鈥 messages, House and Senate members, suffered the increasingly diminished status as backdrop bystanders 鈥揳ttentive, respectful, immobile and mute --until cued to respond at the 鈥減ause-for-applause lines.鈥 As I put it in my earlier column, 鈥淐ollectively鈥ongress comes across as a supine beast at the feet of its master.鈥 Thomas Jefferson would be dumbfounded and clearly vindicated today upon observing all the extra pomp and puffery surrounding the president鈥檚 State of the Union addresses.
got a lesson in civics when Speaker (D-Calif.) made clear that the invitation for a president to address Congress in person is at the initiative of the House Speaker, with the concurrence of both houses, and not an entitlement that a president can impose on an unwelcoming House. He can only be a guest in the people鈥檚 House at the invitation of the people鈥檚 representatives.
The president originally boasted that the initiative to close the government was his 鈥渕antle,鈥 though he later tried to pawn it off on congressional Democrats. Speaker Pelosi, in return, rescinded her invitation for him to address a joint session until the government was reopened. In the end, it seemed a fair exchange of hostages 鈥損utting government workers back to work in return for indulging a TV president鈥檚 prime time glory glow.
Hopefully Congress will now have the good sense to draw the curtain on the prospect of future government shutdowns by enacting a permanent continuing appropriations statute. It should also move future State of the Union Addresses back to 12 o鈥檆lock meridian as was the practice prior to 1965. And finally, it should move all the extraneous Washington dignitaries from the Chamber鈥檚 floor to the visitors鈥 galleries. Only then can we begin to recapture what the Founders had in mind about presidents recommending such measures to Congress from time to time as may be necessary and expedient.
This article was orignally published on
