State of the Union now draws responses

I have written similar things before, as editorials for various newspapers.
I have written this when Democrats held the White House, and it does not alter my opinion. I have written this when Republicans held the White House. It does not alter my opinion.
I don't believe their should be any "responses" to the State of the Union. Whether it be Democrats responding to George W. Bush, or Republicans responding to Bill Clinton.
In other times, for other addresses, I believe it to be appropriate. Generally, the White House is a political operation, and politics is partisan, and deserves as response.
The State of the Union is different.
Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says this --
"
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The State of the Union is a constitutional requirement of the Office of President. As such, it ought to rise above partisanship.
I take to the blog about it because we now have had two responses to the State of the Union. Michelle Bachman took it upon herself to deliver a Tea Party response.
She should have kept her mouth shut. As the Republican who delivered his party's "response" to the State of the Union should have remained silent.
Under our Constitution, it is the President's responsibility to assess and lay out the State of the Union. For any member of Congress to do so is presumptive. For the members fo both parties who have been doing such responses for years based purely on getting their "side" out because the guy in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is from the opposite side of the aisle is to me reprehensible.
I think our Presidents of both parties would not turn the State of the Union into a political speech if they didn't have to prepare for some unknown response to be delivered moments later
The Constitution requires this of the President. It doesn't give any one else the job.
Sit down and shut up and listen.
I wish the networks would refuse to run such speeches given that they are either extra-constitutional or unconstitutional. It's a power grab.
A short term solution might be to go back, as we always should, to what the Founding Fathers did. Their example can still guide.
Thomas Jefferson, for all his eloquence on paper, did not like public speaking.
The State of the Union was a report given to Congress. A written report.
Perhaps some president in the future ought to consider having less face time on TV and delivering more information. And if that happens, no one would be there to "respond" to the written state of the union.

Anyway. It shouldn't be this all the time.

http://youtu.be/XyygC0VN9vU