I dunno, maybe just to piss you off?
Or, possibly, because Palin is chock full of nutty nougat, with no sign yet that the well will run dry?
Or, possibly, just because one never knows what particular message might strike a chord with that one particular voter in that one particular state that will win this particular presidential election?
So you’re sticking to the cockamamie notion that the duties of the President of the Senate proceed from common parliamentary practice?
You also put forth the unique position that the Senate could not remove the power of the President of the Senate, on such duties as ruling on questions of order, and to opening and closing the sessions of the Senate. This is false, as such duties are subject to the rules of the Senate, which can be changed on one day’s notice and a vote of the Senate. Simply put, the Senate does have the power to eviscerate the duties of the President of the Senate, with the exception of voting to break a tie vote.
OK, so in your world, some undecided voter is reading the dope, and they see a thread railing on Palin for not giving a full and complete textbook-perfect answer to a third grader who asked a question, and that undecided voter decides right then to vote for Obama. Get over yourself, pal.
It just occurred to me that Palin may be really struggling with the answer to what is the job of the vice president because the last thing in the fucking world the McCain campaign wants to do is remind people that this bimbo may actually become the HMFIC if something happens to McCain. In light of that she is dancing around that question and trying to fill out the job description without mentioning that little fact.
Actually, the Senate had adjourned for the day by that point. Truman, who had been a Senator only three months earlier, stuck around the Capitol building to have a drink with Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn.
In fairness to Palin, most Vice Presidents avoid talking about their primary duty, which is waiting around in case the President dies.
No, in his world some undecided voter is reading a thread about how Palin wasn’t really at all accurate when describing the role of the Vice President to a student who asked about it, and that voter is a little less inclined to vote for McCain, given his running mate’s shakiness in various areas.
In all fairness to our intelligence, most people are more concerned about this issue now than any time in recent history with the possible exception of Quayle but in all fairness Bush Sr. wasn’t 72 years old. Also this is the main reason most former McCain supporters cite as the reason for being former supporters. So you must concede that while I may be wrong, your basis is a little…lacking.
And the specific examples I gave to the contrary? They are rebutted by simply saying I’m wrong, eh?
That’s a really handy superpower. Do you have a costume?
Hey, I see what you did there.
As a textualist, the first and most important question I ask is: what is the reasonable construction of the actual words of the text?
Any statutory construction would require the interpreter to give some independent effect to the word “preside” apart from casting the tie vote, because both are guaranteed by the text.
In any event, resolving this entire exercise is not necessary. Assuming without deciding that the power to preside derives only from the Rules, what of it? It’s been the way it’s done for 200 years, give or take, and no poster in this thread is going to credibly argue that it’s going to change. So by the Rules, the VP presides over the Senate, and is in charge of recognizing speakers, ruling on procedural motions, opening and closing the sessions, and casting the tie-breaking vote.
Don’t perzackly know, but simply because someone exceeded their Constitutional authority does not imply that they were right, perhaps they simply got away with it. After all, Andy Jackson flipped the Supreme Court the bird, and he got away with it.
Well, yes. Tyler insisted he was the President after Harrison died. Not “Acting President.” Not “Vice-President Exercising the Powers and Duties of the President.” He said he was the Prez.
That was an unfounded assumption, but until the 25th Amendment was passed, it was just that: an assumption.
So if a third-grader in 1960 had asked if the VP becomes President upon the death of the President… and got the answer, “Yes…” would it have been the subject of howls of derision?
I know the answer to my own question. Yes, if it was Richard Nixon answering; no, if it was John F. Kennedy answering. And if the analysis was done on the SDMB.
Gve it a rest, will you, Rick. Just admit she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. It won’t kill you.
Any “presiding” done by the VP is extremely ceremonial and nutless. The VP can open and close sessions, and recognize speakers, but has no role in introducing, writing or voting on legislation. LBJ tried to pull the same “President of the Senate” stunt that Palin mistakenly thinks she can pull, and got nowhere. He was not allowed into legislative committees, was denounced by the speakers he recognized and was basically stymied, cockblocked and generally harrassed by Republican Senators using all the rulemaking power at their disposal until he gave up and quit trying. And LBJ was a former Senate Majority Leader with a hell of a lot more experience, knowledge and (let’s be honest) intelligence than what Palin has.
She is completely delusional if she thinks she would be able to exercise any real power or authority in he Senate. If she insists, she might be allowed to play with the gavel and call meetings to order. Other than that, she will be frozen out of the process just like Johnson was. Her statement that she can “get in there with the Senators” and draft policy is completely false even under the most generous reading of the Constution. Legislation is written in committees, not open sessions. The VP has no role in that. They don’t even have to let her express an opinion on it during the sessions.
There’s a reason VP’s never bother. Do you think they’d pass on the ability to exercise even minimally significant power if they didn’t have to?
None of which involves “making good policy changes.”
Now, just a second there, Mr Smarty Pants Elitist! If McCain wins and the Repuclicans win a veto proof majority in the Senate, well, you bet, they can write the rules of the Senate any way they want, now, can’t they?
What you say, a miracle? Well, yes, it would, wouldn’t it? So I guess you and your Unitarian friends gonna be really surprised, aren’t cha?
(Constitutional law question: who takes the Vice President’s position if she is Raptured?)
Well, after years & years of VP’s ignoring the Senate, & of SCOTUS appointments like Anthony Kennedy, we weren’t sure it was being applied.
This thread is incredible. I used to be able to tell the difference between Bricker and Regards, Shodan.
As for Adams, it’s true that he lorded over the Senate for a while, but then nobody really agreed what exactly the VP was supposed to be doing there anyway. He eventually cooled his jets when the Senate threatened to shove a dirty gym sock in his mouth and make him cast tie-breaking votes by coded eye-blinks. At this point Adams went home and complained to his wife that his “country has in its wisdom contrived for [him] the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency in December of 1832 because he had been elected as a senator from South Carolina. In March of 1833 the (aptly named) Tariff of 1833 was passed. By that time John C. Calhoun was a senator so I’m not sure in what sense he “pushed the bill through” as Vice President.
Dawes did indeed help get the McNary-Haugen bill passed to the President’s desk. Where it was vetoed. He presided over the Senate and did his damnedest to control the discussion, but he had no real power, as the Warren confirmation, well, confirms. The next year the Senate again passed the McNary-Haugen farm bill, this time under Hoover and without Dawes as VP. (It was again vetoed.)
What do I win?
You have already been given some examples. Here’s another.
You people are just plain stupid. I mean, look at this shit-
Voting on legislation? I already cited where Gore did exactly that. You complete moron.
She is not wrong. She is entirely correct.
Boy, ain’t that the truth.
Regards,
Shodan
Another what? Bullshit answer? That was not a product of the Senate, that wasn’t even legislation, that was an Executive memorandum, you mallethead. You are just flailing like a drowning man, who insists on hanging on to his prize anvil. Good luck with that.
Regards,
Shodan