Yeah, likewise.
This looks to me, too, as likely to be the case.
That would make Chronos’ objection to Biden unfair, as Chronos would be criticizing Biden for failing to do something Biden had no power to do.
As I said, I don’t think this is correct. But, hypothetically, if it were correct, would Obama have signed on to his VP making an unprecedented power-play of this kind? Obama, who was at great pains to avoid terrifying that half of the country that would have freaked out at anything that even remotely looked like an Unprecedented Power Play?
Think of the flak Obama got for signing Executive Orders, and multiply it by a googolplex for headlines such as Obama’s VP Tries to Take Control of Senate or Obama Admin. Makes Senate Takeover Bid.
It’s not just that I don’t think a VP has a legitimate path to doing what you condemn Biden for failing to do----it’s that Biden would have had to defy his own president in order to even attempt it.
A new banned I just herd of and … so sad. I’ll not hear them again.
Given the conversation in this thread is limited to “the procedural moves that Biden could or could not have done as Vice President” it seems like there is a factual answer:
“Preside” does not mean set any order of business. At most it means maintaining decorum, recognizing whose turn it is to speak, and interpreting how the Senates rules and precedents should be applied.
It is not a position of significant power.
Is it proposed for a VP to refuse to recognize speakers of the other party? What sort of procedural moves are imagined?
I don’t think it is likely at all that Biden will get the Democratic nomination at all. This Ukraine thing will damage Biden and Bernie’s health problems will likely shift votes to Warren. Plus Biden just isn’t very good at this, based on his previous runs.
I too would like to see some examples of the shenanigans Chronos thinks Biden should/could have gotten up to.
My question was NOT a joke.
When the Majority Leader and President of the Senate were BOTH Democrats they needed 60 votes to do anything. Now that the the Majority Leader and President of the Senate are both Republicans they do anything(*) they want with 50 votes.
Yeah, yeah; I know it’s based on some gobbledy-gook (“reconciliation blah blah”) from some ambiguous Rules of Order, but it’s the leadership of the Senate which rules on what those rules are.
-
- They still need 60 votes to pass a regular spending authorization, I guess. But the R’s are the anti-government party and many are delighted when the government shuts down. If they had some spending they really wanted, you can bet they’d find a way to authorize it with 50 votes.
I think the important thing is that the President of the Senate isn’t really part of the leadership. The job is to referee the game the Senate has decided to play. The role can probably be played at varying degrees of vigour but it’s more like the Speaker in a Parliamentary system and not like the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Istm.
So if the Dems win the White House in 2020 the new Veep can wrest control of the Senate from the Talking Turtle? Is that your fervent hope and prayer? I think it’d be pretty cool, if they could get away with it. Hell, all the other norms have been trampled on… why not?
Of course it’s all fun and games until America gets its eye poked out when the next Dem-controlled Senate is usurped by the next GOP vice president.
Thinking of Indiana, because I grew up there and probably still understand the politics there better than I do in California, and because it’s likely the most difficult of the states you mentioned for the Dems to win in 2020, I think Biden has the best chance there. Or maaaaybe Mayor Pete but there’s a Hoosier on the other side (Pence) to cancel out any Native Son effect. Even though Pence wasn’t too popular as governor, it’s still a Red state. Also Pete may struggle with the black vote there just enough to lose the state. No way Indiana ever goes Blue unless there’s a HUGE black turnout especially in Lake and Marion counties. (See: Obama, Barack)
Some of the more moderate guys that’ve already folded up their tents might have played well in Indiana. But that’s milquetoast under the bridge.
From browsing a couple pages on the U.S. Senate site it appeared to me that the powers of the president of the Senate (the Veep) have been limited more and more over time by changes in the Senate rules. I don’t think the Veep can call for a vote or even speak unless given permission, according to the Rules.
No constitutional scholar I but …
If the President of the Senate rules motions out of order with no basis then I’d suspect the Senate body would ignore such rulings and if the VP continued to try exert rulings with no basis I’d suspect request the VP removed from the body by the Sergeant at Arms. It could be a constitutional crisis but it could result in the VP being impeached I’d guess. If instead it went to SCOTUS I’d suspect the ruling would go against the VP making rulings with no basis. Given that most D Senators and Representatives have respect for the institutions of government the actions would have found little support.
The op is based on a belief that the President of the Senate has the ultimate power over the body which they merely traditionally delegate to the members and thereby to its elected majority leader. That is a mistaken belief.
If Biden had done, or attempted to do, what the OP wanted him to do, there would have been a constitutional crisis. The political climate under Obama was more tranquil than it is today. Biden usurping power in the senate at the time would have been totally bizarre and radical.
Off-topic: IMHO JoJo Biden and Bernie-The-S are too old. As a Left Coaster, I can vote for ANYONE in our primary without much impacting results. California will go for whoever survives that long, and won’t go for Tramp no matter what. That frees me to go Green.
On-topic: Let’s suppose a post-Tramp world (Feb 2021) where peace prevails ie Tramp hasn’t nuked anyplace nor declared martial law; he went fairly quietly. (What a fantasy!) New POTUS Warren and VP Harris strategize. The new VEEP will run the still-GOP Senate, daring any to stop her, just as Pencil-dick would if in that situation. Tramp sez, “I’m the Prez, I do what I want.” The next administration can just follow his precedent. Moscow Mitch objects? Let him call the Senate master-of-arms. I bet the VEEP’s Secret Service detail outguns the SMOA. Who will most likely be escorted from the chamber?
The old political order is dead; the new order is built on smoking ruins left by Team Tramp. Fuck the constitution, and law, and tradition, and functioning government. That’s where America is now. Beware the Vice-Regent; the Senate is their pull-toy.
Move for an Appeal
Nope, it is handled through parliamentary means.
First, post #25 clarifies the topic of this thread, reiterated in post #39. If there is already a mod note regarding staying on topic, I recommend you do so because failure to do so is subject to sanction.
Next, this is my 2nd note to you regarding your hyperbolic and antagonistic posting. Here was the first. This is not the Pit and the above post is not appropriate for this forum. Tone down the hostile rhetoric.
[/moderating]
The first question presumes something that is incorrect. SML’s powers do not derive from the presiding officer because he is NOT the presiding officer. He does not rule on motions, call the Senate to order, etc. His power derives from the choice the Senate has made to give him the power to set the Orders of the Day*. As for the second question, the VP would have to be impeached and removed in which case the President pro tempore would be the new presiding officer until a new VP is approved.
*Although many people think that making the Orders of the Day are a power of the presiding officer, their agenda is a suggestion. The assembly has the power to amend the president’s agenda or even pass their own so in effect setting the Orders of the Day is a power of the assembly and not the president. The only time the presiding officer’s agenda cannot be changed is when calling a special meeting (if within their power).
Almost. Grassley as President pro tem is only the presiding officer if Pence is not there.
By what standard is the presiding officer not part of the leadership?
Correct. There would still have been the same constitutional crisis that the Republicans created. But we would, perhaps, have navigated that crisis slightly more successfully than we did in the history as it has unfolded.
So ypu simply aren’t going to admit that you’re completely wrong? The reason I was kinda not letting go of this at first is because I know for a fact you’ve been disabused of this notion before but for someone reason you refuse to accept it.
If you spent even 2 minutes looking into this, you would see that it is very common practice to let newby Senators take the role of presiding officer to get a feel for the rules. That’s how much it isn’t a leadership position.
Your link goes to rulings by the chair but I assume it applies and would be the process by which ruling motions out of order with no basis would be ignored. Not sure that link though informs as to whether or not the body of the Senate could decide to physically remove a President of the Senate who persistently acted in a manner that clearly demonstrated bad faith and an attempt to hijack or minimally interfere with the legitimate business of the body.
But clearly the VP as President of the Senate is in no position to exert any significant power and is NOT "delegating"power to the majority leader.
The President of the Senate is not part of Senate leadership by ANY standard of leadership. They do not set an agenda, they do not control an agenda, they do not make the rules, the players on the field can overturn any fair or foul, complete or incomplete, ruling they make at any time and are the ones who have the power to change the rules. The President of the Senate even speaks only at the pleasure of the body.
It what possible standard ARE they part of leadership?
That’s what impeachment is for.