Dem
51
GOP
49
Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Constitution says of the president: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ..." Seems simple, no? Not in our polarized country. The #3 House Republican, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), doesn't want to hear from Biden again if he wins, Constitution or no Constitution. Emmer said: "That was about the most divisive State of the Union—I wouldn't extend him an invitation next year, if that's what we're going to get." Is Emmer asking for a copy of the speech in advance so he can judge if it is acceptable? Sounds like that. Biden did have unkind things to say about Donald Trump, but he also laid out his plans for a second term. And the Constitution actually requires him (note the use of "he shall" in the actual wording) to recommend Measures he thinks are necessary. His plans for a second term are the things he thinks are necessary. The Constitution does not give Congress a veto over the speech if some members think they are not going to like the state of the union or the Measures.
Emmer is not the only one who wants to block Biden. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced a bill blocking the SOTU speech unless Biden produced a budget and a national security proposal on time. Actually, he did submit a budget; the Republicans just don't like it. There is nothing in the Constitution or even federal law about national security proposals. Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) doesn't want another SOTU speech next year unless Biden does something about the border. Perry, of course, has neglected the detail that three different border bills have been introduced to Congress and Republicans are blocking them all. (V)