I can imagine that if the Queen said she was going to get in there with parliament and make a lot of good policy changes, there’d be a tidy uproar, despite her already being “in charge.”
I think there’s a lot of subtext being applied to this one sentence on both sides of this debate in an effort to declare her “right” or “wrong”, and we should really be able to go back to Palin and ask for clarification. She either needs to come out and make the same arguments that Bricker has been making in exactly the same eloquant way, and clarify that she does indeed intend to make full use of the powers granted to the VP by the constitution in ways that have rarely (if ever) been used in the past due to differences in interpretation. Or, she needs to come out and say that she understand that “presides” means something ceremonial except in case of a tie, and she was just talking up her job to a 3rd grader.
I’ll say that I really don’t care if she’s right or wrong, but the executive branch has enough power as it is, and I don’t want my VP getting hands on with passing legislation. Clearly she has ideas in mind for her role in the government that don’t jive with a lot of people here, especially those who are leary of the damage Cheney has done. And if she doesn’t have those ideas, she’s certainly giving the impression that she does. I think it’s this point of view that’s fueling at least part of the debate here, and unfortunately it won’t be sufficient to prove her wrong in this case, if only because of the vagueness of her words.
Well, if I’ve said in this thread that she’s right, I’d like to amend that to: “She’s not wrong.”
As you say, her words are vague enough that you can’t call them wrong, but it’s a stretch to declare her right, because she’s left vast nuance undefined.
One more liberal Obama-supporter Palin-hater standing up to say that although she’s said a lot of shockingly stupid things, this isn’t really one of them. As Bricker has pointed out, there have been instances where the Vice President, presiding over the Senate, has influenced the outcome of a debate. Here’s another example (Vice President Mondale, in concert with Majority Leader Byrd, effectively ending a filibuster over the deregulation of natural gas prices in 1977):
I remember this incident fairly well because I was working for one of the filibuster leaders at the time. There was shock and outrage around the office over the fact that the Vice President had pulled the rug out from under two Senators who thought they were carrying the President’s banner.
Yes, it’s true that this worked because Robert Byrd, who could probably recite the Senate Rules in his sleep, wrote the script. But the filibuster collapsed in large part because of the Vice President’s role in ruling a number of amendments to be out of order.
I agree that it’s an exaggeration to say she could actually get in there and shape policy, especially on a regular basis, but it’s not true to say there’s never been a single instance of such action.
I have a question. Say the Senate revises their rules to state “For the purposes of this body, ‘presiding’ shall mean standing up in front of the Senate chamber, greeting everyone by name, and saying ‘Let’s get it on!’ at the start of every session, and no more than that. The presiding VP is then to sit silently in the corner wearing a dunce cap for the rest of the session, unless his or her tiebreaking vote is required to be cast.”
No, she’s wrong. As I and several others posted above your Calhoun and Dawes cites aren’t on point. Specifically Calhoun acted outside of the senate to do it. He tried to raise public opinion about his issue. He didn’t control the senate at all.
This is absurdity. Calhoun’s influence on the Senate’s passage of the Compromise Tariff bill was huge – if that bill had not meant with his approval, we’d have had a Civil War under Jackson, not Lincoln. He didn’t “raise public opinion.” He worked with senators, directly - persuading, cajoling, threatening, begging, trading. Now, you may say he did so outside any official role, but the fact remains that he was (a) a VP, who (b) controlled the passage of a major piece of legislation that (c) saved the country from Civil War for thirty years. It’s really hard to pigeonhole that accomplishment into “all he could do was cast a tie-breaking vote,” isn’t it?
Speaking for myself this is categorically not true. I have even voted for a Republican president. I don’t like her for all of the reasons mentioned up thread. She’s dangerously unsuited to be VP much less the President.
That said this thread is a bit of a stretch. I don’t believe she knows what the duties of the VP are specifically, but I’m sure she’s been briefed. I’ll give her a pass on an answer to a child even though it was wrong, I’m sure she was trying to make it sound important.
Not being flip here - I’m just wondering what the extremes are. The Constitution explicitly says “presides over”, but it doesn’t lay out exactly what that entails. While “presides” in the parliamentary sense has a fairly understood meaning, it’s still not a static definition - parliamentary procedure certainly has changed between 1787 and 2008.
So, if “presides” doesn’t have to mean exactly the same rules and regulations today as it did when John Adams gaveled open the first session in 1789, just how malleable IS the term? How far can the rules governing “presiding” over the Senate change before the Constitution is violated, especially from a Strict Constructionist interpretation, since the Constitution does not provide any guidelines on this?
Except that Palin provided the nuances as she saw them. If she had just said she would be in charge of the Senate, I’d agree that this was just a difference of opinion on what that means. But she said that Vice Presidents “can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes” and that is simply false. Vice Presidents have the same limits on their power over the Senate that the Queen does over her power over Parliament - if either tried to do anything beyond their ceremonial role, they would be overruled. If Sarah Palin trys to get in there with the Senators and tell them what policies to make, they will quickly inform her that she’s not a Senator and has no business telling the Senate what it should be doing.
Sure, LBJ thought he could run the Senate. And Charles Stuart thought he ruled by Divine Right and could tell Parliament what to do. Both were proven wrong.
Idiot is a term reserved for people like Sarah Palin or James II who fail to learn from history and hold positions that have been demonstrably proven wrong.
Right. So Calhoun, who was Vice President at the time, lobbied for a bill.
The Constitution doesn’t say that the Vice President “presides over the Senate.” It says “shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided” (Article 1, Section 3). The Senate is in charge of making the rules about what the President does. One of the arguments for having the Vice President perform this duty was that otherwise some Senator would have to be the President of the body and wouldn’t get to vote except in extreme circumstances.
As for what a presiding officer usually does, they don’t control the debate. They moderate the discussion. Robert’s Rules of Order, for example, defines the office here. This is not a perfect reference, as it wasn’t written until the 1860’s, but it was created based on how parliamentary systems were run, and not out of whole cloth. (Specifically, it was modeled on the US House.) The Constitution indicates that the Vice President will act as President of the Senate, and specifically states that he will have a tie-breaking vote. The President may always cast a tie-breaking vote but, if they are a member of the body, they may also cede the chair and speak on the floor or perform their other duties.
To me it appears that the intent was to have the VP act as the President of the Senate in the parliamentary sense. That is, to run the actual day to day bickering (or debate or whatever you want to call it) as chairman. Then, in order to make it clear that the VP would not be an actual member of the Senate, they put in the clause about tie-breaking vote in order to make it clear that the VP was not a voting member. This clause seems to be restrictive in nature. It doesn’t grant any new powers–because the president of a body can always cast tie-breakers–but rather limits the power of the VP in the Senate.
This seems to square with the excerpt from Story that Richard Parker posted. In it, Story is lamenting the fact that the VP has abdicated his Presidential authority to maintain order, and authority which he was specifically granted by the Constitution.
However, it is important to note that the President/chair does not decide what the agenda will be, he simply reads the agenda into the minutes and then moderates the debate.
I would like to point out that having Ms. Palin sit her ass in the Senate every day and listen to Congress would be a real good way to cram some edumacation into her skull.
I seem to remember Peggy Noonan saying the same thing.
On the other hand, someone once said something like this…
But the problem is that “can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes” is vague; it’s unclear what “get in there” means.
And if Palin wants to try it again? Lord knows she’s better looking than LBJ; perhaps she’d have a better time of it. Would she be right then?
#1: Yes. She’s over 35, a natural-born citizen of the United States and fourteen years a resident, and hasn’t twice been elected to the office of President.
#2: Maybe you meant: is she the BEST-QUALIFIED person to be VP? In which case: no.
I don’t think an unbiased observer would be so certain Palin was an idiot. Of course, I don’t think an unbiased observer would be so certain that she isn’t. Is she dumb or dumbing down? Very difficult to say considering her aw-shucksy mannerisms and rather lousy attempts at folksiness. (Though having grown up amongst people who are genuinely folksy, I know that folksiness usually doesn’t disguise brains.)
That’s a tougher one. Answer: it depends on what role she plays.
She can certainly be an effective VP in the mold of, say, Hubert Humphrey. She certainly cannot be an effective VP in the mold of Dick Cheney or even Al Gore.
The presidency is a funny thing.
Under the right circumstances (a “perfect storm” of a friendly Congress and a stable economy I think she could be an effective President.) For the situation she’d likely be facing, no. I believe she’d be highly dependent on the leadership team that President McCain put in place, and would not be regarded as a particularly effective President.)
