The constitution imposes this burden on Presidents:
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;
The tradition for the last 80 years or a bit more is that the president gives a state of the union address to a joint session of congress. However, the constitution does not require that “information of the State of the Union” be communicated orally, or to both houses of congress simultaneously. “[F]rom time to time” doesn’t even impose any particular frequency requirement. Trump could have claimed, had he not wanted to deliver a SotU speech, that he was constantly giving information on what he thought about the SotU through his daily tweets. Past presidents have simply written letters to congress.
Even in more recent decades when a speech to a joint session of congress has been given by presidents in fulfillment of this clause, the topics of the speech – what’s going on in the US at the time and what things the President finds it necessary to strive to do over the next little while – are exactly the same as the topics of presidential inaugural addresses. As a result, a State of the Union speech too soon after an inauguration would redundant, and certainly not worth the effort and pomp associated with SotU addresses nowadays. For that reason, recent tradition is that an elected President will deliver one inaugural and 3 SotU addresses per term. (It’s hard to say what the “norm” would be for a presdent who was elevated between elections because of the death, resignation, or permanent incapacity of the elected president.)
All these historical facts, as well as the plain text of the constitution, are now being ignored by quite a number of numbskulls on the Right at the moment. They are now arguing that the fact that February has come and gone without a joint session of congress being scheduled to receive the SotU address (they usually occur late January or early to mid February) means something very significant. Some seem to think that this indicates that Biden is unable to muster the stamina for a public event lasting more than an hour. Others seem to think this vindicates Q and proves that Biden knows in his heart that he is not president. Still others seem to think that even if Biden was properly elected, his failure to deliver a SotU speech within a month of his inauguration constitutionally disqualifies him from further service. (It’s unclear if they mean he is simply and automatically no longer president of if they mean that this is grounds for impeachment and congress, on this basis should vote to remove him.)
I could post a bunch of their idiotic tweets here, but honestly if you just search for #SotU on twitter you’ll get more than you ever wanted, and because of the longer-format writing on Facebook, the really amazingly ridiculous stuff is to be found there anyway.
So feel free to look them up and laugh at them if you desire. I don’t need to look up more than I’ve already seen from a friend who forwarded a couple to me & asked if there was anything to their “argument”. I just need to put this here so that no one is accidentally taken in by the argument. It’s an inauguration year. Even if you were skeptical of the extreme constitutionally-disqualifying form of this criticism (or knew enough to simply reject it straight off), I wouldn’t want either of my readers to think that there was anything even remotely abnormal here. This is the way an inauguration year is supposed to go.