Palin thinks the VP is in charge of the Senate

[The_Librarian]

I was just wondering: Didn’t she give about the same answer to the same question in the VP debate?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

Voting on legislation? I already cited where Gore did exactly that. You complete moron.

Yes, asshole, it’s already been stipulated over and over again that the VP can cast tie breakers, but the vast majority of votes do not end in ties.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Librarian

I was just wondering: Didn’t she give about the same answer to the same question in the VP debate?

Yes she did. She must have Googled “Vice President” when McCain first called her up and now she thinks that “presides over the Senate” means being the boss. he should ask Dan Quayle exactly what he was ever allowed to be the boss of.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes, asshole, it’s already been stipulated over and over again that the VP can cast tie breakers, but the vast majority of votes do not end in ties.

The point being, that when you said the VP played no role in voting, you were wrong, and Sarah Palin is right. Since your political position has verged over from extremism into actual mental defect, you fail to recognize this.

So much for “reality-based” politics.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

The point being, that when you said the VP played no role in voting, you were wrong, and Sarah Palin is right. Since your political position has verged over from extremism into actual mental defect, you fail to recognize this.

So much for “reality-based” politics.

I didn’t realize it was necessary to say “except if there’s a tie” because that’s already been stated over and over again. We already know that. You have not made a cutting point. Casting a tie breaking vote is very rare. The fact that Gore only got to cast one vote in 8 years tells you how rare it is. 99.99% of the time, the VP has no role in voting on legislation.

100% of the time, the VP has no role in introducing or writing it.

[Cliffy]

@BrainGlutton

What does the President Pro Tempore do?

Prays for a hung jury.

–Cliffy

[John_Mace]

@Richard_Parker

I’m with Bricker on this one. She was explaining to a third grader. Cut her some slack. “In charge of” and “make policy changes” are just too vague to declare that she doesn’t understand the proper role of the VP–especially when that role is subject to considerable debate.

I can kind of agree with you here, but I have to wonder how her answer would differ if she were responding to an adult. We really don’t know that she purposely “dumbed down” her answer because the questioner was a child. She certainly has answered similarly when asked other questions by adults.

Still, this is yet another: OMG, Palin said something that might be interpreted as being stupid" thread. Lots of people seem to enjoy those, so what the heck. You betcha!

[Cliffy]

@Shodan

Look, I know you hate her for being a Republican.

Don’t be so disingenuous. We hate her for being a evolution-denying, civil-rights ignoring, corrupt, stupid, race-baiting demagogue who has the gall to think she’s qualified to be president despite the fact that she’s amply demonstrated no intellectual curiosity, knowledge of the issues of the day, or ability to count to twenty without taking her socks off. The Republican part is just icing.

–Cliffy

[Richard_Parker]

@John_Mace

I can kind of agree with you here, but I have to wonder how her answer would differ if she were responding to an adult. We really don’t know that she purposely “dumbed down” her answer because the questioner was a child. She certainly has answered similarly when asked other questions by adults.

Still, this is yet another: OMG, Palin said something that might be interpreted as being stupid" thread. Lots of people seem to enjoy those, so what the heck. You betcha!

To my hearing, she addressed Brandon and took the tone of voice that people take when they are dumbing something down to a child. Though, to be fair, she seems to take that tone in many contexts.

I was persuaded by Kimstu’s post. The relevant conclusion:

@Kimstu

I don’t infer from that statement that Palin is literally ignorant of what the VP’s actual role is . . . but she certainly did a piss-poor job of explaining it.

[Shodan]

@Cliffy

Don’t be so disingenuous. We hate her for being a evolution-denying, civil-rights ignoring, corrupt, stupid, race-baiting demagogue who has the gall to think she’s qualified to be president despite the fact that she’s amply demonstrated no intellectual curiosity, knowledge of the issues of the day, or ability to count to twenty without taking her socks off. The Republican part is just icing.

–Cliffy

No, just the opposite. First, you notice that she is a Republican. Then, you search for reasons to hate her. In cases like this one, where your reasons are stupid, you make stuff up, and hate her for that.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

You think you think, but you don’t really, because Shoddy can peer into your mind and knows that you don’t really think. Invasive telepathy, powerful shit.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shodan do!

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Shodan

No, just the opposite. First, you notice that she is a Republican. Then, you search for reasons to hate her. In cases like this one, where your reasons are stupid, you make stuff up, and hate her for that.

Regards,
Shodan

I love the way you read people’s minds. Can you read mine?

I’m sorry I hurt your feelings there. No, not there. Just there. And I think that of you, too. Yes, I do. No, I don’t. No, seriously, that’s what I think about almost all your posts. Yes. No. No. Maybe. That’s silly. Okay. Bye now, gotta go.

[Richard_Parker]

Some interesting reading from Story’s classic constitutional treatise suggesting that the power to preside has been a matter of constitutional debate from the beginning:

§ 737. A question, involving the authority of the vice president, as presiding officer in the senate, has been much discussed . . . Hitherto the power of preserving order during the deliberations of the senate in all cases, where the rules of the senate did not specially prescribe another mode, had been silently supposed to belong to the vice president, as an incident of office. It had never been doubted, much less denied, from the first organization of the senate; and its existence had been assumed, as an inherent quality, constitutionally delegated, subject only to such rules, as the senate should from time to time prescribe. In the winter session of 1826, the vice president decided in effect, that, as president of the senate, he had no power of preserving order, or of calling any member to order, for words spoken in the course of debate, upon his own authority, but only so far, as it was given, and regulated by the rules of the senate. This was a virtual surrender of the presiding power (if not universally, at least in that case) into the hands of the senate; and disarmed the officer even of the power of self-protection from insult or abuse, unless the senate should choose to make provision for it. If, therefore, the senate should decline to confer the power of preserving order, the vice president might become a mere pageant and cipher in that body. If, indeed, the vice president had not this power virtute officii, there was nothing to prevent the senate from confiding it to any other officer chosen by itself. Nay, if the power to preside had not this incident, it was difficult to perceive, what other incident it had. The power to put questions, or to declare votes, might just as well, upon similar reasoning, be denied, unless it was expressly conferred. ** The power of the senate to prescribe rules could not be deemed omnipotent. It must be construed with reference to, and in connexion with the power to preside; and the latter, according to the common sense of mankind, and of public bodies, was always understood to include the power to keep order; upon the clear ground, that the grant of a power includes the authority to make it effectual, and also of self-preservation.**

§ 738. The subject at that time attracted a good deal of discussion; and was finally, as a practical inquiry, put an end to in 1828, by a rule made by the senate, that “every question of order shall be decided by the president without debate, subject to appeal to the senate.” But still the question, as one of constitutional right and duty, liable to be regulated, but not to be destroyed by the senate, deserves, and should receive, the most profound investigation of every man solicitous for the permanent dignity and independence of the vice presidency.

Joseph Story. 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) (emphasis added).

[To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Sarah Palin is familiar with the historical debate over the constitutional role of the VP. Just thought it was an interesting insofar as this thread is a debate about that role.]

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

Hmm. So LBJ, a former Senate Majority Leader with a hell of a lot of experience, knowledge and intelligence took the same position that Palin takes now; Palin takes it in a quick explanation to a third-grader during an interview and Johnson took it on the floor of the United States Senate.

But Palin is the one that’s an idiot for holding the position.

Gotcha.

[wring]

People, people. There are so very many excellent reasons to worry about Palin in the WH, this just isn’t one of 'em.

[Kimstu]

@Bricker

So LBJ, a former Senate Majority Leader with a hell of a lot of experience, knowledge and intelligence took the same position that Palin takes now

Goodness, you really had to wriggle to come up with that equivalence, didn’t you? Dio’s point was that LBJ tried to exert some actual influence in the Senate when he was VP, and got absolutely nowhere. Which is more evidence that no, the VP doesn’t have significant actual power as President of the Senate.

So by this time, it ought to be perfectly clear even to someone as ill-informed as Palin that presiding over the Senate is not the way for the VP to “make a lot of good policy changes”.

And as I noted in my previous post, I’m inclined to believe that in fact, she’s aware of that. She just did a lousy job of answering the question because she can’t talk her unscripted way out of a paper bag.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Wow.

Just… wow.

You know, you’d think you’d do a little bit of research before making such a sweeping declaration.

Not once, huh?

Genius, up until the 1960s, it was more likely than not that the VP would preside on the majority of days the Senate was in session. John Adams was known for his particularly activist use of the role. Remember the Nullification Crisis and Calhoun’s use of the presidency of the senate to push through Clay’s Compromise Tariff of 1833?

Calhoun wrote a pamphlet that was trying to give credibility to a movement. No one is saying that Palin can’t have a blog.

How about Dawes and the McNary-Haugen farm relief bill?

Hint: the world did not begin in 1964.

Isn’t that an example of the rules breaking down because Dawes didn’t care about them? Supposedly he convinced them “by force of personality”. Mind you, the Senate had assured him there would be no more votes that day and he went home for a nap :rolleyes:, when they voted anyway and had a tie they called him back. By the time he got back they had resolved the tie. All he had to do was guilt them into changing the vote back the way it was. He didn’t use the official capacity of his position to make the change, he blustered. No one is saying Cheney can’t walk up to some senator in the hallway and say, “if you don’t vote for the Cheesy-Poof measure, I’ll fucking make sure the RNC doesn’t back you for re-election.”

You’re ignorantly mixing up the office with the people.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

He didn’t use the official capacity of his position to make the change, he blustered. No one is saying Cheney can’t walk up to some senator in the hallway and say, “if you don’t vote for the Cheesy-Poof measure, I’ll fucking make sure the RNC doesn’t back you for re-election.”

You’re ignorantly mixing up the office with the people.

I am?

I thought I was rebutting this line:

You love to use your knowledge of the law and your debating abilities to ignore the obvious fucking fact that in the history of the Vice Presidency, it has never, EVER been exercised in that way.

NOT ONCE.

Now it seems we all agree it HAS been exercised this way several times.

In this area especially, it’s myopic to dismiss the value of the person holding the office. Again I point out John Tyler’s insistence that he was THE PRESIDENT after Harrison died. His forceful insistence created precedent which sustained Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Johnson in their assumption of the office. I assume you wouldn’t hand-wave Tyler’s assumption of the presidency away and tut-tut at me for “…ignorantly mixing up the office with the people.”

Would you?

[Sinaijon]

Wow. This thread is just full of awesome. It’s like an epic comic book battle, where the villian is forced to use so much of his power to fight the protagonist that he no longer is able to disguise his true appearance. The facade starts to drop and everyone sees the truth of what he really is.

In this thread, the liberals are so preoccupied with their manufactured outrage that they are no longer able to conceal their stupidity and it just comes shining through like a beacon.

What, it took like 50 seconds to start arguing that ‘preside’ doesn’t actually mean ‘preside’?

[E-Sabbath]

@Tenebras

What do I win?

Applause, and recognition. I was about to go hunt down the same thing. I find that when Bricker has holes in his arguments, they are findable, provided one expends the effort.