Emmer’s sour note on speech to Congress

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

It’s hard to top the traditions of the annual State of the Union address.

There’s the presidential glad-handing on the path to the podium. The solemn moment as the speech begins. The memorable turns of phrase. And, in this era of the smartphone camera, the innumerable requests for photos with the commander in chief from lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.

The snapshots are a welcome addition to the speech’s pomp and circumstance. Regardless of political differences, most of us would like a selfie with the president to share with family and future generations. Moments like this are a timely reminder in these divisive times that we are all Americans.

This annual get-together also has value for the public watching it. Civic classes have unfortunately mostly gone by the wayside, but seeing the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government gathered in that room is a needed refresher on our political system’s foundations. That’s another important reason why politics shouldn’t interfere with the long, venerable tradition of the president delivering the State of the Union in person at the U.S. Capitol.

The latest concern about interrupting that practice stems from a comment made by U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer, the influential Republican who represents Minnesota’s Sixth District. During a recent party retreat, he proposed canceling future invitations for President Joe Biden to deliver the address before Congress, according to news reports.

Emmer’s remarks came after Biden’s March 7 address. While the Star Tribune Editorial Board agrees that the upcoming campaign flavored Biden’s speech — and debate over that approach is welcome — this is also an age of strong political rhetoric.

Biden’s remarks were fiery at times but still met the constitutional obligation, outlined in Article II, Sec. 3, that the president will “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.”

Although constitutional obligations don’t require the president to convene Congress or deliver the address in person, there are good reasons why this has been the standard since 1913. President Woodrow Wilson delivered his report as a speech as part of his efforts to “build a personal presidency with the people,” according to the Wilson Center.

Prior to that, it had been a written document for the previous century, though George Washington and John Adams delivered their updates as an address.

The current State of the Union tradition lends itself well to the modern era. It’s easier than ever to watch. There’s no need to find a television to gather round. Many of us watch on our smartphones.

That’s a positive in our view. People are engaged and informed. That involvement adds to the argument against interfering with the current in-person speech tradition.

Emmer’s office did not respond this week to an editorial writer’s follow-up questions, including whether he might take the high road and reconsider his stance on the address.

Another relatively recent example of politics interfering with the State of the Union came from Democrats. In January 2019, CNN reported that “President Donald Trump declared his annual State of the Union address ‘canceled’ on Wednesday after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent word she would bar him from delivering the speech in the House chamber while parts of the government remain shut down.”

Those issues were resolved, with Trump delivering the speech before a joint session of Congress in February of that year. But Pelosi was wrong to pull Trump’s address into the standoff, as the Editorial Board wrote at the time.

After that spat, Trump noted correctly that the U.S. Capitol is “a very, very spectacular building in a beautiful room that we should be in, and that’s where it’s been for a very long time.”