Really? Then why was Harry Truman presiding over the Senate the day FDR died and he became President? There were no tie-breaking votes that day. Certainly the Electoral College had no votes to be certified.
So what was Harry doing?
“Preside over the Senate” is an entire part of the job; it is not limited. Your “a” and “b” are both separate, explicitly empowered parts of the job description. They are not limits on it.
Maybe he was bored that day and he wandered over – "What’s up, guys? Any tie-breakers today? No? Shit. Whatever. Carry on. …
… Fucking who died?"
Oh hell! I almost felt bad for her.
Not only that - this was alluded to earlier, so I looked it up:
No tie votes that day, right?
The Senate cannot pass rules that supersede powers constitutionally granted to the Vice-President, and Byrd and Mondale made use of that back in 1977.
Now, if anyone wants to deny this little historical fact or any other points I’ve raised above, please let me know. I’ll be the first to admit that normally this kind of thing doesn’t enter into the discussion - but that doesn’t mean people who argue that the Vice-President has power only in tie votes aren’t wrong.
There isn’t a transcript online that I could find, so I made my own:
Chris Matthews asks Nancy Pfotenhauer what the job of the Vice President is. She responds:
“Obviously the role of the Vice President is to support the president but also to preside when necessary over the US Senate .”
At which point Chris Matthews says “no!” and babbles a bit about how it’s such a hard job to defend Palin. Then he says:
“the role of the Vice President, let me state it very clearly right now is to replace the president that is necessary. As Colin Powell said on Sunday, that’s the job of the Vice President: to stand ready under the constitution under tragic circumstances to replace the president. Now, that’s one role. The other role is to have only a tie-breaking role as presiding officer in the United States Senate.”
The first time I stopped watching the clip just before he said “now, that’s one role” because the man’s voice annoys me and he certainly seemed to be on a tear about how the only thing the VP does is sit around and wait. It certainly seemed to be where he was going. Having watched the rest of the clip, he does go on to say that there is a legislative role to the office. However, I disagree with his characterization of this role as being strictly limited to casting tie-breaking votes. The text from the constitution is actually fairly clear: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” That does not say “the VP can vote ties and not anything else.” It says “the VP shall preside over the Senate, but they only get to vote if there’s a tie.” That is, the job of the VP is to “run” the meeting, and under certain circumstances they can vote.
Now, I disagree that the presiding officer is “in charge” of the meeting, as they do not decide what the agenda is and have a very limited scope to influence the proceedings at all. I also think that trying to hold up Calhoun as an example of a VP using his office to influence legislation is dubious. The reason he resigned was because his advocacy came to light.
As for Harry Truman being in the Senate on the day Roosevelt died, well, that was most of his job, wasn’t it? You know, being the Prez of the Senate. Of course, if he decided not to show up there would be a temporary replacement. But what would he do with his spare time, then?
Since the 1950s the VP has presided less than 1 percent of the time it has been in session. A Pro Tempore is assigned to sit.
The VP can address the senate ,only if they grant him permission. Yep a real power in the senate ,that job is.
He stopped bucks as a hobby. Y’know, for practice.
Do you need to address the senate to preside over it? I don’t think you do - as presiding over it would entail ruling on procedure like Mondale did in 1977 and not making a speech about the legislation necessarily.
I have stipulated that this is not a concern most times - but there are times where it matters, and they have been cited. You haven’t addressed these, and perhaps you should.
They can try to rule on procedures, but procdeures are decided by the Senate, so the VP’s “ruling” is basically meaningless. All the VP can really do is “me too” what the Senate already wants.
I don’t know why the Palin defenders just can’t admit that she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.
Ahhh…it doesn’t matter anyway. This election is as over as disco. This woman will never see the inside of the Senate chamber.
Yes, there is a President Pro Tem for the times when the VP isn’t there…and yes, since the fifties, the VP has seldom exercised their Constitutional power to preside.
Which doesn’t erase that power.
By the way – you missed this.
Apparently.
If that were the case, could you explain to me why all those senators in my link were so pissed off? After all, if what was happening was what the Senate wanted, then they should have been pleased as punch, right?
Hey everybody, I was just eating something and my cat gave me the ol’ “Meow?” I took the next ten minutes to explain in great detail to my cat why he could not have any of the food I was eating (which incluced a full comparative analysis of the digestive system and health needs of humans and cats).
Presiding over the Senate isn’t a “power.” Presiding over the Senate is no more being “in charge” of it than throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game makes somebody a starting pitcher.
In other words, you were wrong. Right?
Once more – presiding is not a power. It’s a ceremonial privilege which carries no force of authority.
And this influences policy how? Does she plan to throw the gavel at people with policies she don’t agree with?
I should think a search of replies to your posts would illustrate quite nicely how third graders are handled around here.
Yes you do, absolutely surely most assuredly. Unless presiding means sit in the cloak room to you.
Sure it is. Now it may be a power that doesn’t have a lot of teeth, but its a power nonetheless. This seems to be an odd thing to seek to deny at this stage in the debate, especially through semantic gamesmanship. But just for the record, my previous post was referring to what’s below, as the VP can preside over the senate) with whatever amount of power the word carries) every day if he, or she, likes.