Yes, since that time, the VP has presided over the Senate many times.
The VP is not in charge of the senate. If you can twist a couple strange historical incidents into it, it does not change the fact. She will not be in charge of the senate. She would be led out like the nit wit she is. I can just picture her walking into the senate. I need a laugh and that is surely a big one waiting for us all. I am always impressed with how far you will reach rather than just admit the truth. Like the thread on registrations, which was another twist that failed miserably.
The VP votes during ties. The VP had collude once long ago during a bill. That does not equal Palin will be involved in the senate bills and will lead or talk to them. She will not.
Is this your answer to Bricker’s question? Talk about failing miserably.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5456 Because Mikel ruled that the rights of voters were being taken away. I do not know his party affiliation. He was installed by Clinton but he did not just put in dems. I can not find his party. Bricker twists so I do not accept him as being correct. The ruling was different than Bricker suggested. Bickel says voter ID matching is wrong.
In case no one has read the Senate Rules, there are two powers the Presiding Officer has under Rule VII
Thus the VP can bring matters before the Senate directly from the President.
Thus the Presiding Office could delay the reading of a motion if they want.
I’m not claiming that the VP has a lot of power in the Senate, but I think that we have all seen how a poor presiding office can allow a minority to abuse the rules and lose control of the deliberative process. What if a VP decided to stymie the work of the Senate unless the desired policies of the President are implemented?
Another point. The history of the HOR is rife with some Speakers abusing the presiding power. Tip O’Neil will famous for quickly saying, “Without objection” and pounding the gavel ignoring the objections of Republicans. Hell, Pelosi did a similar thing as PO of the DNC when Hillary asked for a suspension of the rules to nominate Obama by acclaimation.
Now you may (and probably will) argue that Palin would be impeached if she abused her Constitutional power as PO of the Senate to further McCain policies - but the point remains that it can be done.
No, actually, you don’t.
Next topic?
Those rules are decided by the Senate, not by the Constitution, and the Senate can change them any time it wants.
Saint Cad has a valid point. The gist of my nitpick of Bricker’s comments earlier in the thread is that (a) the Constitution trumps any other law, regulation, procedure, or whatever; (b) the Constitution provides that the Vice President shall be ‘President of the Senate’; and © the Constitution provides that each House of Congress may adopt their own Rules. The Senate has done so; that means the presiding officer of the Senate, whether the Vice President or a Senator sitting pro tem, must act in accordance with them. The presumption that the VP may act in accord with Robert’s Rules, other guide to Parliamentary procedure, or any other procedural standard, whether honored by time or pulled from his fundament, is an invalid one.
I’m wondering if Rule 3 as quoted by Saint Cad actually means that the President may say, “Hey, I think you guys should adopt this” (in more formal language, of course) and have the V.P. put it before the Senate. The custom has always been for a Senator in agreement with the President to introduce such a measure, but it sounds like the V.P. under Senate rules has a right to introduce matters on his own, without motion by a Senator, when the President has transmitted something to him.
You’re funny, Corky. Don’t forget to put on your helmet when leaving the house.
-Joe
I just saw this on youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5X1eaozxQ
A clip of Biden explaining the role of a vice president.
It’s easy to follow, (realitvely) succint and literate.
To the scholars here (and Bricker and Shodan), is it an accurate description and why the hell couldn’t Palin give a description even 10% as easy to understand or accurate?
I like the way you type, NewGuy.
Well, it depends on your definitions. Biden does not mention the Constitutionally-defined role of the VP, so it is not complete. He also mentions that the VP helps the President to create and implement policy, and I thought you people really meant all the foolishness about how Palin was wrong when she said the same thing.
If you are merely saying that something is right when Biden says it and wrong when Palin says it, then you all are as stupid as you appear to be. Not that there was any doubt of that from the first.
I realize you people are being deliberately stupid. I am merely amusing myself by forcing you to demonstrate it over and over.
Still not trolling, though. Oh no. Nothing like that.
She didn’t say the same thing.
I can’t watch videos at work so I honestly don’t know the answer to this question…
Does Biden mention that he will be getting in there with the Senators and helping to create a lot of really great policy changes? Or does he say that he will be working with the President towards policy changes (within the executive branch)?
I think one of these is wrong and the other is right.
In the clip, Biden says that the Vice President helps advise the Presidident, give his opinions, tell the President when he thinks he’s wrong and then, once the President makes his decision, do what he can to lobby Congress. He did not say that the VP is “in charge of” the Senate, only that he can advocate policies on the President’s behalf.
Here is the transcript, word for word, of Senator Biden’s answer:
Well, the Vice-President helps the President do two things. Helps the President get elected and helps the President run the government. And so, with the Vice-President, if it really works well, the Vice-President is someone the President is making really tough decisions like do we go to war, do we spend more money for education, do we help kids get to college. But the Vice-President sits in the room and says “Well, Mr. President, this is what I think.” And it’s gotta be somebody the President trusts in order for him to be able to work out a deal where they govern together. And that’s just kinda my job is, Danny. I, um, I’ve been a senator a long time, and there’s a lot of things I know a little bit about, and my job is to say to Barack Obama when I think he’s wrong, or, “Barack, whaddya think about this?” That’s what he wants me to do. And my job is when he makes a decision to help him get it enforced. And the last thing, Vice-Presidents, if they have a … have they ability, when the President comes up with an idea, and says “We want to make sure every kid in America can go to college.” OK? And he introduces a law, and sends it up to the Congress, and says, “Congress, vote for this!” Well, I have a lot of experience in the Congress, so what I do, I literally will go up to the Congress, and I’ll sit down with the congressmen from Florida, and the congressmen and senators from California, and I’ll say, “Guys, women, this is what we want to do,” and try to convince 'em to change the law, to help kids get to college. That’s the kind of thing the Vice-President does.
First of all, I think Biden’s answer is perfectly acceptable.
But anyone who is suggesting this is an outstanding answer really needs to explain how
is terrible, but
is brilliant.
I don’t believe you can have it both ways.
Moreover, Biden fails to mention the two duties that the Constitution gives the VP. The President doesn’t have to use the VP as Biden describes; that’s a choice for any given President to make. But absent a change in the Constitution, the VP presides over the Senate and casts the deciding vote in ties. If I were grading him, I’d give him a few points off for missing that part.
The difference is that Biden never claimed the VP was “in charge of” anything," or imply that he could personally have a hand in writing policy. Saying that he can lobby Congress and try to persuade them to support given policies is accurate. Claiming the VP has any legislative authority is not.
So what, we’re going to grade every vice-presidential answer strictly? Wouldn’t we then have to deduct points from Biden for trying to boost his Main Street credentials by mentioning a hangout he couldn’t have hung out in for twenty years?
Or how about the major whopper he told about kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon - and this from a supposed foreign policy expert. Same cite.
You guys will give Biden pass after pass (at least you will now - when he was a candidate for the big job his effort went nowhere and for pretty much this reason.) But Palin gives an answer that is at least constitutionally correct and you’ll nitpick it to death.
But Palin didn’t claim she had legislative authority. “Gets in there with the senators…” is as vague a claim as it’s possible to make, and what Biden describes is fairly characterized as getting in there with senators and congressmen as well.
So what we’re left with is whether “in charge of” is a fair way to describes “presides over.”
It is.