Balkinization: Americans should prepare to spend more time traveling abroad (assuming they will be allowed in)

Comments:

Regarding the impact on tourism in America, I understand our hotelier-President has ordered Trump hotels to provide "family and friends" rates to Rust Belt Trump voters.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:22 PM

Going by all the time traveling tv shows ...

"more time traveling"

#outofcontextquotation

# posted by

Joe : 9:23 PM

Q: WHat is President Trump's plan for defeating ISIS? A: "ICE IS!"

Query: Should the Commander-in-Chief demonstrate courage? Like the courage to avoid incoming at the annual Correspondents Dinner?

Did anyone else notice that Reince Priebus was MIA on the Sunday political talk shows today?

Might Barack Obama get the Correspondents Dinner gig now that he is unemployed, with the aid of Alec Baldwin seated at the Faux table glowering? I understand that Trump has played more golf since his inauguration than the unemployed Barack.

"And the Oscar )Mayer) Weiner goes to Stephen 'Ban! Ban!' Bannon."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:09 PM

Acceptance statement for Best Foreign Film is germane.

# posted by

Joe : 10:25 PM

If President Trump is concerned that Mexico might not pay for The Wall, he might hedge his bets by hiring Mexican illegals to build it. That would be a real artful deal Didn't it work at Mar-a-Lago and other Trump projects?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:38 PM

Sandy: I guess the current mantra is that "we can't be too careful" whom we let into the country, but the same is not true, of course, about whom we allow to purchase guns run potentially-polluting companies, teach in our now-sacred charter schools, etc.

Because foreign citizens living overseas enjoy no rights under our Constitution, they can in fact be barred from keeping and bearing arms, owning US companies and teaching in our schools.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:59 PM

SPAM I AM! takes out of context the Sandy quote SPAM then comments on. The second clause of the quote is not a reference to foreign citizens living overseas. Rather it refers to those whom America allows to purchase guns, etc, that can and do cause harm here in America.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:18 PM

Sandy: A story in the Washington Post details the idiotic behavior of the United States in nearly preventing a distinguished French historian of the Holocaust (who apparently is originally Egyptian) from entering the United States at the Houston International Airport in order to go to Texas A&M to deliver an academic speech. I earlier suggested that no international organization with any sense would schedule conventions (or sports contests) within the United States at least until the demise of the Trump Administration

What does this have to do with Trump?

Immigration screwed up long before the Donald came to town.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:18 PM

Shag:

Given there is no analogy whatsoever with denying foreign citizens entry into the United States and denying American citizens their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, own property and work as they please, I provided an anaolgy where there was none before.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:21 PM

I don't think it works either way and if some French professor is denied (by Skype) from teaching in a charter school, as with the ongoing litigation, third parties are likely to have standing to sue because their own interests are harmed.

# posted by

Joe : 11:24 PM

لمعرفة كافة خدمات و عروض مراكز صيانةشارب المعتمدة و التي تقدمها الشركة العالمية للصيانة فلا تتردد في التواصل مع موقعنا الالكتروني الذي يحتوي على كافة المعلومات التي يحتاجها العملاء

# posted by

صيانة : 4:57 AM

"I don't think it works either way and if some French professor is denied (by Skype) from teaching in a charter school, as with the ongoing litigation, third parties are likely to have standing to sue because their own interests are harmed."

That's a really strange precedent they're trying to set, that if a US citizen invites somebody from abroad, the federal government can't bar their entry. I really doubt it's going to survive review.

...

Sandy, this is not a joke, this is not sarcasm. Please, seek some professional help. I really do think you're starting to need some chill pills.

# posted by

Brett : 5:55 AM

He's talking about standing, and it doesn't seem odd to me. If the government effectively shuts down my speech event because they bar my lead speaker from attending based on what they're going to say, they've impinged my speech rights (which naturally entails a right to receive speech).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:02 AM

I'd agree with you, were the challenge to Trump's immigration order about the government barring somebody from 'attending' an event by Skype. But it's about physical entry into the US, and standing to challenge the federal government's barring a non-citizen's physical entry on the basis that you might have invited them, is going to be really, really hard to sustain.

# posted by

Brett : 8:33 AM

كثيرًا ما يواجه عملاؤنا وجود اعطال او تلفيات او توقف في اجهزة تكييف كاريير ، و يضطروا الى اللجوء لمراكز صيانة كاريير الغير معتمدة لاصلاح هذه الاعطال .
لذلك فإن توكيل كاريير قام بتوفير فروعه لمراكز صيانة كاريير المعتمدة في جميع انحاء مصر حتى يتمكن العملاء من زيارة فروعنا و الحصول على خدمات الصيانة المضمونة التي يحتاجوها .

# posted by

carriermaintenance : 8:38 AM

Mr. W:

Where exactly is this right to import foreign citizens to work, entertain or educate located in the Constitution?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:56 AM

Given that nature abhors a vacuum, SPAM I AM! inaptly (11:21 PM) makes an attempt in an effort to cover up his lack of context. Now how about that abhorrent vacuum between SPAM's ears?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:34 AM

"Where exactly is this right to import foreign citizens to work, entertain or educate located in the Constitution?"

Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 1, I believe. But the relevant clause sunsetted 209 years ago.

# posted by

Brett : 9:39 AM

That's a really strange precedent they're trying to set, that if a US citizen invites somebody from abroad, the federal government can't bar their entry. I really doubt it's going to survive review.

BP said something. Shag said he missed the point. I said "either way" that I don't think it works. I was not specifically talking about the Trump immigration order.

But, as Sandy Levinson notes, the policy overall here is going to affect American citizens' right to receive information and so forth. This is not surprising given past actions, which also received pushback, back to the early 20th Century when anarchists or the like was kept out including those merely here to give a speech or something. See, e.g., the case of John Turner.

Libertarians might be concerned when freedom of speech is blocked etc. but of course the 1A is not absolute and there are various reasonable regulations here. OTOH, it doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of citizens." The "right of the people" language arises regarding the right of assemble and petition. Still, even there, aliens being blocked can inhibit the people's rights and other constitutional provisions might be involved.

Anyway, Brett seems to agree that even aliens in foreign countries being blocked by Skype can be problematic, so my point as to how questionably broad the passage Shag referenced is confirmed. I also think, though as a matter of current law this might be novel, one can find constitutional provisions where foreigners abroad are protected. If torture was used by the U.S. government to punish a foreigner in Spain, e.g., the Eighth Amendment to me is violated. There would also be personal (US as a party) and subject matter (arising under the Constitution etc.) under Art. III.

# posted by

Joe : 9:42 AM

Brett is getting repetitious with his:

"Sandy, this is not a joke, this is not sarcasm. Please, seek some professional help. I really do think you're starting to need some chill pills."

A reminder of Brett's past history he laid out at various blogs following his marriage travails and his blaming the legal system including his own attorney and then going "international" and providing advice to others similarly placed. Of course Sandy will disregard Brett's buffoon advice, just as the media will ignore the efforts of the Trump/"Ban! Ban!" Bannon Administration to stifle it.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:45 AM

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

This is not exactly a "right" as such & states had the power to block importation, but guess it somehow can be interpreted that way.

Anyway, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) came to mind.

The Act of February 26, 1880, "to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia," 23 Stat. 332, c. 164, does not apply to a contract between an alien, residing out of the United States, and a religious society incorporated under the laws of a state, whereby he engages to remove to the United States and to enter into the service of the society as its rector or minister.

The opinion cites obligations to God and various protections of religious liberty in that respect among its discussion. The Free Exercise Clause suggests a possibility that provides at least a limited right to bring in foreigners such as if a church here was assigned an Italian cardinal.

# posted by

Joe : 10:03 AM

I'm not convinced that the Constitutionality of an order depends on the technology available to avoid it. Skype didn't exist 15 years ago. Would the telegraph have been sufficient to make such an order Constitutional? And before that, for our "originalists", would letters?

No, it seems to me that such orders must be judged on their purpose and effect independent of how someone might circumvent it. Otherwise, rights become no more than a game in which any government action that doesn't entirely foreclose the exercise, but merely inhibits the most useful, becomes "legitimate".

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:06 AM

Brett:

Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 1 allowed states to govern their own immigration (most especially the involuntary immigration of slaves) until 1808, when Congress could prohibit immigration.

This section further suggests there is no right to import foreign citizens to work, entertain or educate.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:08 AM

SPAM I AM! references the 2nd A right to keep and bear arms. This applies to the "people" who need not necessarily be American citizens. And of course even Justice Scalia once believed (Heller, 5-4) that there were appropriate limitations on 2nd A rights. SPAM may be a fan of the once Iraqi custom of shooting rifles in the air in celebration. SPAM may also favor a US official firing his weapon across an international border and injuring/killing someone on the other side and be legally immunized from liability.. As Joe points out, the 1st A speech clause is not absolute. Neither is the 2nd A. DCOTUS has yet to examine all the parameters of the 2nd A following the 21st century Heller (5-4) decision. For an example, does an illegal immigrant in the US have a right of self defense with the use of arms as set forth in Heller (5-4)?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:08 AM

Brett is not a lawyer, his teammate SPAM I AM!, who is a lawyer, will at times correct Brett, such as"

"This section further suggests there is no right to import foreign citizens to work, entertain or educate."

SPAM claims to be a textualist, but apparently a feint-hearted one. Just a suggestion.

"

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:13 AM

feint-hearted

Great typo or greatest typo ever?

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:46 AM

The old pros don't admit it if it works.

# posted by

Joe : 10:52 AM

"Of course Sandy will disregard Brett's buffoon advice, just as the media will ignore the efforts of the Trump/"Ban! Ban!" Bannon Administration to stifle it."

Possibly he will, and possibly he'll stroke out on election night 2020, should Trump win his second term. But I'll at least know I gave the advice.

# posted by

Brett : 10:56 AM

Mark, check out:

http://intelligentanswers.co.uk/index.php?topic=3917.0

I neither admin nor deny.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:00 AM

And possibly if Trump fails in 2020 - or before (that's my foresight based on the hindsight of the first 40 days and 40 night), Brett may resort to Hemlock. (Note: I once referred to Brett as "Hemlock" because of his concern with the epidemic of opiod overdoses of older white males. I wasn't suggesting he had the wisdom of Socrates in case anybody thought so.)

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:08 AM

Brett/Shag:

Sandy has to get through the next four years first.

Unless he calms down, I am unsure whether Sandy can make it through Trump's first 100 days.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:19 PM

I gather the blog gives him a chance to vent in a positive way and he can relax when going to those South American conferences, while some of us have to stew closer to home.

# posted by

Joe : 12:27 PM

There is that, at least he can vent, perhaps it's theraputic. But even with the venting he seems to be getting more agitated as time goes by, not less. Hence my concern.

# posted by

Brett : 12:40 PM

Speaking of international views:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/speech-by-j-singh-divided-by-a-common-language.pdf

As to the value of traveling, see Kent v. Dulles.

# posted by

Joe : 12:59 PM

The government may have the right to bar entrants, but not for unconstitutional reasons. If they bar the invitee because of his speech then they're violating the first Amendment, and as planned hearer of the speaker of the invite I should have standing to sue.

The government has the power to stop imported goods more clearly than it does power over immigration, but it couldn't bar me from importing a book based on its contents.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:26 PM

Mr. W: The government may have the right to bar entrants, but not for unconstitutional reasons. If they bar the invitee because of his speech then they're violating the first Amendment, and as planned hearer of the speaker of the invite I should have standing to sue.

Foreign citizens living overseas have no rights under the First Amendment or any other party of the Constitutions.

You have to right to import foreign citizens to have them speak to you.

Thus, when the Congress and President bar entry to foreign citizens, they do not violate the constitutional rights of foreign citizens or yourself.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:34 PM

Our own Brettbart (the really, really "unBreit") as trolls at this Blog attempt to get under the skin of Sandy. Alas, Sandy like the Energizer Bunny comes back more energized than ever. Perhaps deep down in their heartless hearts our dynamic dyslexic duo Brat and Bert wish for the results they suggest rather than concerns for his health. In the past I have noted that if we didn't have these trolls at this Blog w would have had to invent them. Sandy was reassuring several threads ago that his health was good. As what's-his-name used to say at this Blog years ago, "Cheers."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:36 PM

That's like saying foreign citizens have no right to ship goods to the U.S. (heck, U.S. citizens have no right to import them either) so the government could bar importation of a book to me based on its contents. That would be unconstitutional, and while the sender might not have standing, I would.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:54 PM

These times might warrant a return of Arne "Cheers" Langsetmo, but sounds he has better things to do. http://sv-morrigan.blogspot.com/

# posted by

Joe : 2:03 PM

Update: The first draft of the update at least is in all caps. I hope Brett et. al. is not too worried about what this "shouting" will do to the professor's state of health.

Anyway, I think it's fair to say more than one of us realize SL was talking about policy, not just raw constitutional power here, but it is appreciated he clarified his remarks.

# posted by

Joe : 2:21 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:45 PM

Mr. W: That's like saying foreign citizens have no right to ship goods to the U.S. (heck, U.S. citizens have no right to import them either) so the government could bar importation of a book to me based on its contents).

Precisely. Excellent analogy.

Congress and to a lesser extent the President has the power and has frequently exercised the power to impose trade limitations ranging from tariffs to complete prohibitions on the importation of goods.

Economic sanctions are the exercise of this power.

Once again, foreign citizens living overseas have NO RIGHTS under our Constitution. ZIP, ZERO, NADA,

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:46 PM

Both Brett and Bart need to read the update.

Policies may be legal, and still stupid, destructive, and abhorrent.

# posted by

byomtov : 2:58 PM

So you think the government could bar my purchase of a book from another country on the grounds the contents of the book are dangerous and I'd have no standing to challenge that?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 3:04 PM

Here's an example of what Sandy is talking about: a major international wrestling competition was to take place in Iran. Iran does quite well at wrestling so they were a natural host. The U.S. also does well at this sport. But when Trump put his ban in, Iran responded by barring US travel. This included the U.S. wrestling team, for which this was an important event. Luckily when our judged stayed the ban Iran lifted its reciprocal measure.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 3:12 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:26 PM

Sandy: I'M SIMPLY ARGUING THAT ADOPTION OF TRUMP-BANNON PARANOID IMMIGRATION POLICY WILL LIKELY LEAD TO CONSEQUENCES THAT MANY AMERICANS, INCLUDING TRUMP VOTERS, MIGHT REGRET. THE NYTIMES HAS A LONG STORY TODAY ABOUT THE LIKELY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR BID TO HOST THE WORLD CUP IN 2026. AND I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS--INCLUDING BUSINESS-ORIENTED ONES AND NOT ONLY ACADEMIC GATHERINGS OF POINTY-HEADS LIKE MYSELF--WILL REFRAIN, IF THEY ARE WISE, FROM PICKING THE U.S. AS A DESTINATION. AFTER ALL, LOOK AT THE INCREASINGLY GENUINE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF COMPANIES LIKE COCA-COLA AND MANY, MANY OTHERS.

I doubt anyone apart from a tiny minority of voters would even notice such retaliations.

I am far more interested in how foreign voters, most especially in the EU, will view Trump's evolving stay/vetting/ban orders. Instead of rejecting the Trump orders, pluralities to majorities in nations like the UK, France, Germany and Sweden with increasing immigrant crime and violence could very well elect governments who adopt Trump policies. Because she is up for reelection, Germany's PM Merkel is in full retreat from her open door policy and is talking deportation on the campaign trail.

THE 'CULTURE WAR" IS INCREASINGLY BETWEEN GLOBALIZED BUSINESS AND DELUDED TRUMPISTAS WHO BELIEVE THAT A MERCANTILIST ECONOMIC POLICY BASED ON BEGGAR THY NEIGHBOR MAKES ANY SENSE IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

There are two reasons to support increased and increasingly illegal immigration: (1) business's desire to import cheap labor and (2) the Democrats need to import voters to replace the Americans they are losing. Neither of these reasons are popular with a majority of American voters. Now, if we returned to a free economy with high economic growth, plentiful jobs and a resulting labor shortage, the first reason would not be a problem and the party of government dependence would have far less purchase with immigrants.

BUT THAT IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT FROM PROMISES THAT THE GREAT DAYS OF MANUFACTURING WILL RETURN IF JUST WE CLOSE OUR BORDERS AND ADOPT HIGH TARIFFS.

Thankfully, Trump has not offered and the GOP Congress is highly unlikely to enact any such legislation. All he is proposing to date is a shift from multilateral to bilateral trade agreements and exercising his powers under preexisting trade agreements to impose sanctions for cheating.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:27 PM

"Policies may be legal, and still stupid, destructive, and abhorrent."

Oh, absolutely. The former is the proper jurisdiction of the courts, the latter of the elected branches.

"So you think the government could bar my purchase of a book from another country on the grounds the contents of the book are dangerous and I'd have no standing to challenge that?"

I think we're looking at a case more analogous to banning all imports from a particular foreign state on the basis that they're hostile, and we can't assure that dangerous contraband might be slipped into the normal commerce. Books just get included by default, and customs doesn't really care about subject matter.

The reason I say this, is that "books" with the same "content" are not being banned from import from the rest of the world.

# posted by

Brett : 3:31 PM

Mr. W: So you think the government could bar my purchase of a book from another country on the grounds the contents of the book are dangerous and I'd have no standing to challenge that?

Standing? Maybe.

Basis to win under the Constitution? Under what provision?

We currently bar the importation of Islamic fascist propaganda based on its content

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:53 PM

SPAM I AM! informs us:

"We currently bar the importation of Islamic fascist propaganda based on its content."

Query if the "importation is via the Internet?

What about white supremacy fascist propaganda based on on its content? SPAM should not overlook his accusations of Trump as a fascist over and over again; and I assume SPAM is aware of Bannon, David Duke and other connections to the Trump campaign.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:29 PM

Shag:

AQ/ISIS produces video, audio and print propaganda in addition to what you can find online.

As soon as Team Trump produces anything similar, we can add their products to the discussion.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:35 PM

Under the First Amendment, and we don't bar ISIS speech.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:02 PM

Or, Isis speech. You can even make a golden calf and bow down to it.

# posted by

Joe : 8:58 PM

Mr. W:

Try flying in from overseas and declare to customs you are bringing in the complete collection of Anwar al-Awlaki's lectures on the glories of jihad. I am sure they will be very impressed with your First Amendment argument.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:27 PM

The opening post explicitly was about the policy and its foreseeable consequences, not about it legality. Respecting that distinction, I object to the ban on entrants from the 7 named countries because it is beside the point, focuses on particulars that are not as great a danger as the Trumpistas assert, ignores greater dangers, and therefore is just plain stupid.

# posted by

Unknown : 12:31 AM

SPAM I AM! at 9:27 PM seems to be encouraging border book burnings. And perhaps customs searches of smart phones. Or maybe banning of smart phones with entry. Or lie detector tests. SPAM seems all in for a fortress America, a tad of fascism. Alas, SPAM sees no threat from within fortress America from citizens and people who clearly have rights under the Constitution capable of doing harm, such as Timothy McVeigh, the Bundys, David Duke, the Stephens Bannon and Miller and yes, even the ilk of our own Brettbart (the really, really "unBreit"). Fortress America is Chicken Little "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" mentality.

Query: Is Trump's speech to a joint session [ganga and AG Beauregard?] of Congress Trump's virgin State of the Nation chaos speech? Let's get a pool going on how many times Trump says "fake news." The Trump entrance should provide comic material for months, years with Republican fawning in overtime.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:09 AM

On President Trump's "To Russia With Love" campaign investigations, House Intel Committee chair Rep Nunes does not want to bring back McCarthyism. I'll never forget the Army-McCarthy hearings picture of attorney Roy Cohn whispering sweet nothings into Sen. Joe McCarthy's ear. That's the same Roy Cohn who later mentored the young businessman Donald J. Trump as they took a shine to each other. Trump had a connection to McCarthyism via Roy Cohn. Is Rep. Nunes aware of this?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 5:21 AM

Recall during the Trump campaign how The Donald would enrapture his base with his critiques of Pres. Obama's use of a teleprompter? Will President Trump "sink" to the level of Obama for his State of the Nation chaos speech tonight? Or will he ad lip [sic]?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:33 AM

Generally, presidents use SOTU speeches to give Congress their wish lists.

It will be interesting to see whether Trump asks Congress for anything on immigration or trade.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:20 AM

Some before SOTU reading:

http://duckofminerva.com/2017/02/we-have-studied-the-world-the-president-should-too.html

After the speech of the Trump [yes him, unfortunately], Colbert will be live at 11:35. http://www.amny.com/entertainment/colbert-to-host-live-late-show-after-trump-s-address-to-congress-1.13187395

"According to White House spokesman Sean Spicer, the speech will focus on "the renewal of the American spirit."

Well, we know what it won't be.

# posted by

Joe : 9:40 AM

I understand SNL may be working on a musical skit "Spic[i]er Girls" with Melissa, of course, and possibly Rosie O'Donnell, and a few more. The "names" may include "Old Spice."

Check out Trump's "SUCCESS" at:

https://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-SUCCESS-AFTERSHAVE-Package/dp/B00SAC0OME

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:49 PM

Speaking of a joint session, AG Beauregard recently speechified about nasty aspects of recreational ganja, with a suggestion in the air that DOJ may enforce federal marijuana laws in states that legalized recreational ganja. So perhaps SPAM I AM! will be organizing his little mountaintop community militia to preserve their ganja-freedom: Glocks in jocks!

Query: Will this thread go into moderation to prevent streaming comments on Trump's speech?

I predict Trump will say fake news at least 10 times.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 5:20 PM

Shag: Query: Will this thread go into moderation to prevent streaming comments on Trump's speech?

You keep us all informed. I do not waste my time on SOTUs.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:47 PM

There is a 48 hour window to comment & it will kick in before the speech.

It is technically not a state of the union.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/donald-trump-address-not-state-of-the-union/

# posted by

Joe : 6:50 PM

I am not a fan of the SOTU speehes, regardless of political party. I do watch at least some for the pomp and circumstances, including the choreography of the camera work with switching camera shots. I'm curious as to how Trump will handle the teleprompter, the standing Os, the applause or lack thereof. Of course the pundit analyses may provide a few laughs. I assume the media will get advance copies of the speech. And I''ll especially be thinking about comedic reactions that will unfold tonight and through the Sunday political talk shows. Can I stay awake? Will all the Justices show up? Will Ban! Ban! Bannon serve as puppet master?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:34 PM

Joe: It is technically not a state of the union.

I know, but referring to it as the SOTU which shall not be called the SOTU is too long to bother with.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:05 PM

Shag:

I expect the Trump SOTU will be the mirror image of an Obama SOTU (this time with the GOP applauding and the Dems sitting on their hands with maybe one yelling out "liar")

The Donald does the teleprompter when the speech has a script. The man will never be an orator, but he can read from the prompter just fine.

What would be interesting is if ICE agents arrested the illegal immigrants the Dems plan to bring as political props.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:09 PM