Yes, he is the president pro tempore , since pence doesnt chair the senate very often. But if Harris was there, Grassley wouldnt have anything to do.
We are talking past each other. He turns the chair over to a new Pro-Tem, goes back to the floor, and then rises as the first speaker.
Sure, and that is fine as long as the Veep isnt sitting.
If the Veep is sitting then they chair.
Or perhaps I misunderstand your point? I agree, that is what happens in the current senate because Pence rarely sits.
It would not be like that at all if Harris decided to sit.
Modern Vice-Presidents have rarely sat, unless there’s a possibility of a tie. What makes you think the new VP will sit on a day-to-day basis?
I have already replied to you and told you why. It neutralizes most of Mitchs power.
And I’ve already explained that VPs no longer routinely sit as the chair. It’s very limited. Ties, swearing in new senators, and reading the results of the electoral college every four years.
Yes, I know they dont. But they can if they want to.
This would be a way of curtailing Mitch.
My cite above explains it.
I have no idea if Harris will do this, but she can.
Um, I re-read the whole thread. Which post of yours contains a cite?
Post 7 & 8.
Yes, indeed, for several decades the Veep hasnt routinely chaired the senate, even tho the Constitution clearly allows it, and seems to expect it.
But Mitch has become a dictator. Mitch, and Mitch alone decides what bills get passed. No one else in the Senate might as well be there. The way he dumped Garland is emblematic of this.
The Veep can certainly Chair the senate, it is right there in the Constitution. If the veep is chairing, the president pro tempore has nothing to do. The tradition is that the president pro tempore recognizes the Majority Leader first. However, that is not in the Constitution, it is merely tradition- which the GOP happily shits on.
If the Veep chairs she does not have to specially recognize the Majority Leader first.
I dont know why you have a problem with this. It is 100% constitutional.
Are you thinking just because it is traditional that the Veep only chairs a couple special sessions she cant chair anytime she so pleases?
D’Anconia has already explained; rulings from the presiding officer can be appealed to the entire Senate on a point of order, which always takes precedence over other business.
So you could have this:
Mitch and Schumer both stand up.
President of the Senate Harris: “The Chair recognises the Minority Leader.”
Mitch: “Point of order, Madam Presiding Officer. It is the invariable custom of the Senate that the Chair first recognises the Majority Leader.”
The Chair: “In my opinion, the Minority Leader stood first and is equally entitled to speak first. I recognise the Minority Leader.”
Mitch: “I appeal from the ruling of the Presiding Officer to the Senate.”
Vote is held. Majority rules in favour of Mitch’s point of order; Harris has no vote as long as the Repubs have a majority of the members in attendance.
President of the Senate: “I recognise the Majority Leader.”
Oddly enuf, I have both a cite and the Constitution.
What cite do you have?
Can you show that that can override the Constitution? Is it actually a ruling?
You’ve cited part of the Constitution relating to the conduct of the Senate, but not all of it. In addition to the provision making the Vice-President the President of the Senate and providing for the president pro tem (Article I, s. 3, clauses 4 & 5), there is also the provision that the Senate sets its own rules of procedure (Article 1, s. 5, clause 2):
Thus, the President of the Senate is not a dictator and doesn’t get to set the rules of procedure. It’s the Senate as a whole which sets the rules. It has done so, and sets out the process for points of order, in Rule XX of the Senate Rules:
A paper from the Congressional Research Office explains in more detail how the appeal process works: Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the Senate.
Thus, the Presiding Officer is a relatively weak one, as any ruling made by the Presiding Officer can be appealed immediately to the Senate as a whole, and the Senate can overrule the ruling of the Presiding Officer.
The relative weakness of the Presiding Officer is a point made in the article which you cited. The Senate has chosen to make the officer a weak position, unlike the Speaker of the House, because the Vice-President can at any time assume the chair. Given the close connection between the President and the Vice-President, there is the concern that giving the Presiding Officer a strong role would indirectly give the President the power to direct the debates and legislative agenda in the Senate, exactly as you are suggesting.
The article you cite also explains the origin of the rule that the Presiding Officer always first recognises the Majority Leader:
The article is correct that this practice is not set out in the Rules of the Senate, but is rather a practice established by the President of the Senate in 1937. Yes, a new Vice President could try to change that rule - but it is the Senate, not the Vice President, who has the final say.
If the Vice President failed to recognise the Majority Leader, any Senator could rise on a Question of Order and contest the failure of the Vice President to follow the practice established in 1937. There would be debate, and the Senate as a whole would then vote whether to uphold the Question of Order raised by the Senator and whether to overrule the Presiding Officer. The Vice-President would not have a vote on that matter, unless the Senate is tied.
If the Senate allows the appeal, the Presiding Officer is overruled and must recognise the Majority Leader according to the 1937 practice.
If the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, can you see any chance where they would reject the appeal, uphold the ruling from Vice-President Harris, and effectively cede control of the Senate to the Vice-President?
(And, apologies to @UltraVires - I see that he was the one who made the point that there could be an appeal to the Senate on a question of order, not D’Anconia. Late night posting sometimes leads to errors. 
)
But the Speaker isn’t elected by the majority party only - she’s elected by the House as a whole. If the majority in the House changes hands, so the Dems are in the minority, wouldn’t the new majority have the power to trigger a new Speaker election?
I am not an expert, but everything I can find indicates that the Speaker is elected at the beginning of a new Congress (biennially, after the General Election). Period. The only exception is in case the chair becomes vacant.
But, there does seem to be a mechanism to move to “vacate the chair”, although it’s only been brought to a vote once in U.S. history, and failed.
Presumably, if the Republicans managed to somehow regain a majority mid-Congress, one of them would move to vacate the chair, and they’d have the votes to remove Pelosi, and vote in a Republican speaker.
So, it wouldn’t be automatic, and the precedence is uncertain, but the mechanism does seem to be there.
Even aside of the procedural problems raised by @Northern_Piper, I’m not sure what practically would be accomplished by Harris refusing to recognize McConnell to speak first. Schumer would simply be voted down on every single motion he tried to make. He wouldn’t even be able to bring nominations and legislation up for a vote – he would lose the vote on the “motion to proceed” to the item. The Senate would come to a standstill.
The precedent of allowing the majority leader to be recognized first is as much a recognition of the practical reality of the partisan nature of the Senate and to not waste time on matters that don’t have a hope of getting a majority.
And we’d be able to see that the senate voted.
Yes. The House declares the Speaker’s Office vacant and then the vacancy is filled (I assume) in the ordinary manner for vacancies. Presumably the majority party prevails in such election.
Maybe. If this happened, Republicans would say it’s a coup and would use every procedural tool at their disposal to shut down the Senate. It occurs to me that the most obvious thing they would do is simply refuse to allow a quorum (51 Senators) which would prevent the Senate from doing anything.
Republicans have constituents that demand their pork barrels just like everyone else.
If you dont deliver that pork, they dont contribute to your re-election fund.
Congressional earmarking has been banned for ten years, but whatever.
Suffice it to say that I disagree that Republicans will blithely go along with Democrats seizing control of the Senate despite their being in the minority, all because they need to secure some cow flatulence research grants for their state’s agricultural university. I suppose in the .001% chance your scheme unfolds, one of us will be proved right.