# Palin thinks the VP is in charge of the Senate **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956 "2008-10-21T21:57:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/121 "2008-10-22T16:53:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Why, is flat-out lying not working out well? > > šŸ˜ƒ > > Regards, > Shodan Look, **Regards, Shodan** , where did I lie? ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/122 "2008-10-22T16:53:24Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > **Bricker** is not being randomly partisan, heā€™s citing his references and laying down a good argument. He cited John Adams, who tried to run the Senate until the Senate remembered that the only thing the constitution required was that Adams be allowed a tie-breaking vote. After which point Adams sat in the corner and whined because he realized he was truly powerless. He cited John C. Calhoun, who gave up the Vice Presidency to _become a senator_ three months before the bill he supposedly pushed through was voted on. The catalyst for Calhouns resignation was the issue of nullification by the states. Calhoun wrote an anonymous pamphlet advocating this right, and its authorship was discovered. He resigned the Vice Presidency and became a senator. And the bill he ā€œpushed throughā€ with Henry Clay passed by comfortable margins in both the House and the Senate. Dawes is almost an example of what heā€™s looking for, but even Dawes had extremely limited power to ā€œcontrol the debate,ā€ and that mainly through force of personality. Most of what Dawes did was sit and fume in the Senate chambers while senators filibustered, which he had no power to stop. The McNagy-Haugen farm bill was part of a compromise that he helped broker, again through force of personality. ([Cite](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Charles_Dawes.htm) on Dawes.) So thereā€™s one example in 225 years of a Vice President ā€œget[ting] in there and really mak[ing] a lot of good policy changes.ā€ Of course, the bill was vetoed, but never mind that. That one example is of a Vice President getting in there and making policy changes. As in ā€œa Vice President did that onceā€ and not ā€œthere once was a Vice President who.ā€ So yeah, it only took 140 years for a VP to really make a policy change. It doesnā€™t seem to have happened since, but in that respect I feel as though that really is the job of the Vice President. Heaven forbid anyone ask Cindy McCain or Michele Obama what the job of the First Lady is: ā€œWell, Timmy, the job of the first lady is to carry the art out of the White House in case of a fire.ā€ Then weā€™d have a five page thread about whether the real duty of the First Lady is to rescue art in general, or just paintings of Washington. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/123 "2008-10-22T16:54:06Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > You guys are turning into what you hate. Seriously. Palinā€™s answer is not perfect, but neither is it factually wrongā€“if itā€™s slightly exaggerated, who fuckinā€™ cares? . It is, actually, factually wrong. She said: ā€œ[T]heyā€™re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changesā€ The Vice President is in charge of the US Senate to some extent, Iā€™ll give her that. But the Vice President _cannot_ get in there with the Senators. The Vice President has no substantive, meaningful effect on the debate, especially since most VPs havenā€™t bothered to do much of anything there anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/124 "2008-10-22T16:57:38Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > But the Vice President _cannot_ get in there with the Senators. What an odd thing to categorically deny. Itā€™s such a vague, colloquial phrase, how can you possibly categorically deny it? > [@Captain Carrot](#): > > The Vice President has no substantive, meaningful effect on the debate, especially since most VPs havenā€™t bothered to do much of anything there anyway. Even stipulating that VPs have had no substantive effect on policymakingā€“which I think is generous stipulationā€“youā€™re confusing what VPs have typically done with what they are allowed to do in that role. The latter question is, as a factual matter, unsettled unless you can point us to a Supreme Court decision explaining the meaning of ā€œpresides over.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/125 "2008-10-22T16:59:49Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > The Vice President has no substantive, meaningful effect on the debate. He has the Constitutional authority to control what is debated. That is substantive, meaningful, and effective. Hereā€™s a cite from the Senateā€™s own website: [U.S. Senate: Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm) Just because the recent VPā€™s havenā€™t exercised that authority, doesnā€™t mean they donā€™t **have** it. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/126 "2008-10-22T17:05:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And presiding is enumerated quite precisely: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. " No more, no less. To presume that the position of President of the Senate has any power beyond the tie-breaking vote is imagine authority that is not in evidence. Disclaimer: I donā€™t like Palin. That said, presiding over a legislative body allows a great deal of power and control, especially to someone skilled in the rules of order. She could always, at least hypothetically, work with Republican lawmakers on creating legislation as well, although nothing she has done or said so far gives me the impression that sheā€™d be very good at that. She might just generate ideas and have others work out the legal specifics. Still, it is an uninformed opinion to say that there is not power to be had there beyond casting tie-breaking votes. The political realities may later prove otherwise, but the power IS there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/127 "2008-10-22T17:19:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Perhaps you could comment on the rules of the Senate: > > [PDF link.](http://www.riddick.gpoaccess.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Presiding%20Officer.pdf#xml=http://www.riddick.gpoaccess.gov/PdfHighlighter.aspx?DocId=108&Index=D%3a%5CWebSites%5CUseIndex%5CSenateProcedures&HitCount=1&hits=1be+) Am I misunderstanding your point, or has the Senate adopted in its precidents a rule that would not be endorsed by any ā€œserious legal scholar?ā€ I think youā€™re misunderstanding my point. Of course the Vice-President must apply the rules of the Senate as written, _except if they ever conflicted with the Constitution._. For example, if the Senate modified its rules to preclude the VP from presiding on Fridays, or from casting a tie-breaking vote only a budget bill. The idea that the Senate can constrain or expand the powers of the chair are not in dispute ā€“ but that cannot eviscerate the power of the chair lower than the ordinary meaning of ā€œto presideā€ ā€“ which, in fact, is pretty much where they are right now. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/128 "2008-10-22T17:27:22Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > If sheā€™d given that answer in, say, the VP debate, Iā€™d call her out on it. An informal answer to a third grader is not required to be intellectually rigorous (not that I think sheā€™s capable of being intellectually rigorous in any context but still, this is a non-issue). The answer is in the right ballpark, if not entirely scrupulously true. Sheā€™s said it at least four times including one of the debates. Thereā€™s a video in the following link with examples of her saying it. > **[Keith Olbermann "Campaign Comment" On Palin: Are You Smarter Than A...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/keith-olbermann-campaign_n_136733)** > > Keith Olbermann "Campaign Comment" On Palin: Are You Smarter Than A Third-Grader? (VIDEO) ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/129 "2008-10-22T17:33:57Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > He has the Constitutional authority to control what is debated. That is substantive, meaningful, and effective. > > Hereā€™s a cite from the Senateā€™s own website: [U.S. Senate: Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm) > > Just because the recent VPā€™s havenā€™t exercised that authority, doesnā€™t mean they donā€™t **have** it. Did you read what youā€™re citing? I presume youā€™re referring to this paragraph? > [@](#): > > Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the bodyā€™s proceedings. Rule XVI provided that ā€œevery question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate.ā€ Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent. It doesnā€™t say anything about Constitutional rights to control what is debated. What that paragraph says is that, in the first Senate, the Vice President was given the power, by the Senate, to decide all questions of order. Then they decided that this was a foolish thing to have done and theyā€¦ wait for itā€¦ changed their minds. The Vice President no longer has this power because itā€™s not part of the Constitution, itā€™s part of the Senate rules. Iā€™m almost positive that this rule was changed during the Adams Vice Presidency (that is, really quite early in the history of the office). In the 1920ā€™s, when Dawes was VP, the Vice President had the power to rule on points of order, but those rulings could be appealed by _any_ member of the body. Dawes was proud of himself that none of his decisions had ever been appealed. The reason that recent Vice Presidents havenā€™t exercised this authority is exactly because they donā€™t have it. The Constitution says that the Vice President shall be the President of the Senate. What does ā€œPresident of the Senateā€ mean? It means whatever the Senate damn well says it means. And it hasnā€™t meant what youā€™re claiming it means for more than 200 years. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/130 "2008-10-22T17:35:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think youā€™re misunderstanding my point. Of course the Vice-President must apply the rules of the Senate as written, _except if they ever conflicted with the Constitution._. For example, if the Senate modified its rules to preclude the VP from presiding on Fridays, or from casting a tie-breaking vote only a budget bill. > > The idea that the Senate can constrain or expand the powers of the chair are not in dispute ā€“ but that cannot eviscerate the power of the chair lower than the ordinary meaning of ā€œto presideā€ ā€“ which, in fact, is pretty much where they are right now. The part that seems to be escaping you is that ā€œpresidingā€ is not the same as ā€œbeing in charge.ā€ It is not an authoritative position, just a ceremonial one. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/131 "2008-10-22T17:36:44Z")
> [@Tenebras](#): > > The reason that recent Vice Presidents havenā€™t exercised this authority is exactly because they donā€™t have it. The Constitution says that the Vice President shall be the President of the Senate. What does ā€œPresident of the Senateā€ mean? It means whatever the Senate damn well says it means. And it hasnā€™t meant what youā€™re claiming it means for more than 200 years. This is factually false. First, in our system, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional meaning is the Supreme Court. If they havenā€™t decided, or provided the means of deciding (as in Youngstown), then you cannot conclusively assert what the Constitution means on an ambiguous matter as a matter of fact. Second, you really should read the Story cite I posted earlier. It makes pretty plain that changes to the VPs role were made _in spite of_ the generally agreed upon meaning of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/132 "2008-10-22T17:36:52Z")
Here another link from a VNN article. :[[URL=ā€œhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ā€]Palin Misstates VP role.](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/133 "2008-10-22T17:41:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think youā€™re misunderstanding my point. Of course the Vice-President must apply the rules of the Senate as written, _except if they ever conflicted with the Constitution._. For example, if the Senate modified its rules to preclude the VP from presiding on Fridays, or from casting a tie-breaking vote only a budget bill. > > The idea that the Senate can constrain or expand the powers of the chair are not in dispute ā€“ but that cannot eviscerate the power of the chair lower than the ordinary meaning of ā€œto presideā€ ā€“ which, in fact, is pretty much where they are right now. So, since the Senate has, over the years, considerably changed the role of the presiding officer by changing its rules, your points about what Vice Presidents have done in the past WRT their position in the Senate are moot, are they not? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/134 "2008-10-22T17:43:03Z")
Is the debate on the meaning of the word ā€œpresideā€ in the Constitution? Who decides what ā€œpresideā€ means, if it came to a push-and-shove? The SCOTUS? From **Bricker** ā€™s examples, it looks like there has been pushin-and-shovin in the past, but it never got placed before the SCOTUSā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/135 "2008-10-22T17:43:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The part that seems to be escaping you is that ā€œpresidingā€ is not the same as ā€œbeing in charge.ā€ It is not an authoritative position, just a ceremonial one. Itā€™s both. Look, would you fault someone saying that the Queen is ā€œin chargeā€ of ruling the United Kingdom? She has almost no true authority; the PM is the head of government. Her actions, although ceremonially designed to ā€œgive assentā€ to acts of Parliament, are practically speaking useless; the Queen doesnā€™t refuse assent, ever. But her ceremonial function is to be in charge. Itā€™s not wrong to describe her that way ā€“ although of course I grant you that the description is not nuanced. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/136 "2008-10-22T17:43:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The part that seems to be escaping you is that ā€œpresidingā€ is not the same as ā€œbeing in charge.ā€ It is not an authoritative position, just a ceremonial one. As a matter of custom, not constitutional law. And Iā€™d maintain that ā€œin charge ofā€ is too vague a phrase to categorically deny even as a matter of custom. You can read lots of things into ā€œin charge ofā€ that would violate custom and the current Senate rules, but you can also read lots of things into it that would not (such has being in charge of lobbying Senators to introduce or pass certain legislation). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/137 "2008-10-22T17:45:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, since the Senate has, over the years, considerably changed the role of the presiding officer by changing its rules, your points about what Vice Presidents have done in the past WRT their position in the Senate are moot, are they not? It depends on what arguments Iā€™m replying to. If youā€™re talking about the claim that NEVER ONCE IN RECORDED HISTORY HAS THIS HAPPENED (post #31) then obviously my points are highly responsive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/138 "2008-10-22T17:46:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > As a matter of custom, not constitutional law. > > And Iā€™d maintain that ā€œin charge ofā€ is too vague a phrase to categorically deny even as a matter of custom. You can read lots of things into ā€œin charge ofā€ that would violate custom and the current Senate rules, but you can also read lots of things into it that would not (such has being in charge of lobbying Senators to introduce or pass certain legislation). **Richard Parker** is probably the most intellectually honest debater active on the SDMB in political threads these days. Besides me, of course. šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/139 "2008-10-22T17:48:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It depends on what arguments Iā€™m replying to. > > If youā€™re talking about the claim that NEVER ONCE IN RECORDED HISTORY HAS THIS HAPPENED (post #31) then obviously my points are highly responsive. Can you explain the Calhoun connection, then? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956/140 "2008-10-22T18:00:42Z")
> [@Tenebras](#): > > Can you explain the Calhoun connection, then? Of course. Things donā€™t happen in a vacuum. Why did the Compromise Tariff need to pass? It was a response to what was known as the Nullification Crisis, with Calhounā€™s South Carolina declaring that it need not pay certain federal tariffs ā€“ the state legislature passed a resolution saying the tariffs were unconstitutional, led by Calhounā€™s efforts. Congress the ā€œForce Bill,ā€ enabling the President to use military power to enforce federal tariffs, and the President sent Navy ships out accordingly. This is basically a Civil-War-Dress-Rehearsal, and it was defused only by the passage of the Compromise Tariff, which (while it was actually passed after Calhoun left the Senate) included most of the demands that Calhoun had insisted upon from the beginning. Indeed, the reason Calhoun left the VP spot was the public unveiling of his persuasive efforts in favor of nullification and his undercutting of the administration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palin-thinks-the-vp-is-in-charge-of-the-senate/468956.md?page=8)