Thank you.
I wish it were returned by some of my opponents in this thread, who seem to refuse to concede even the most obvious points they’ve lost on.
First of all - there is a Senate office called the Office of the Vice-President - this is funded by the legislative branch and has staffing. These staffers work for the vice-president, while other of his staffers are paid be the executive branch.
This demonstrates that this office does have a legislative role - entirely in keeping with constitutional provisions, even if the vice-president isn’t exactly a legislator.
Secondly, I have here a transcript from 2001 showing Al Gore presiding over a joint session in his role as President of the Senate - this was for the purpose of accepting the electoral votes from each state. Vice-President Gore rejected several motions opposing the Florida electors because the motions were made by House members only and were not in accordance with Title 3 of the U.S. Code.
So, can the vice-president preside over the Senate? Sure. Is this just for tiebreakers? No - there were no ties to be broken that day. I don’t think anyone here will argue that this role is generally a ceremonial and constrained one, but it is written in the Constitution and comes to the forefront sometimes.
Check out the next State of the Union - whoever is vice-president will be sitting next to the Speaker of the House not as a representative of the administration, but as the constitutional representative of the Senate. To deny these things is just foolish. A better case can be made that Palin could influence legislation informally rather than in a heavyhanded formal way - that is a valid point that can be made without getting into this whole mess.
I think it is at least as clear as what the common understanding of “preside” is.
Actually, precedent indicates that the Vice President is allowed to tell Senators to fuck off.
It’s theoretically possible that Palin might do what she described. Assuming McCain and Palin get elected (and already were into hypotheticals) Palin might be able to go into the Senate and start asserting her authority. And it’s possible that the Senators would be cowed into submission and would not resist her (despite the fact that the majority of Senators will probably belong to the opposing party). If this happens, then I suppose Palin can start telling Senators what bills to introduce and how to vote on them. In which case, she will indeed be making policy changes and will be in charge of the Senate.
Why Palin could accomplish this when Johnson couldn’t would be a mystery. Johnson had the advantage of an intimate knowledge of both Senate procedures and the character of the Senators in office, as well as an established history of leadership over the Senate and a strong majority from his party. Admittedly, he wasn’t that good-looking.
But even if all this came to pass, it would still be a case of Sarah Palin creating this power. It doesn’t exist now and it hasn’t at any point in the last century or so. Her response (as quoted in the OP) indicates that she believes this power already exists and has been exercised by previous Vice Presidents. So what she said is still wrong.
Not necessarily. Her answer could well have been in the context of: “What will the VP’s job be IF I AM ELECTED TO IT?” rather than “What’s the VP’s job now?”
She was, after all, doing an interview for the purpose of persuading listeners to vote for her.
(And I’m not seriously contending that, were Palin elected, she would be more successful at this than LBJ, although again I point out that she’s WAY better looking and could potentially leverage that asset. As it were.)
Except that wasn’t the goddamned question and she never mentioned what she would do as Veep, only what the VP actually does.
Don’t forget that it could have been in the context of “What is the Vice-President’s job on Uranus?”, too.
Could have been, but it wasn’t.
Sometimes when you’ve fucked up, it may be wise to admit you’ve fucked up and move on, instead of desperately reaching for increasingly implausible explantions for the fuckup. I’m just saying.
Her answer was “They’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes.” Are you trying to say that Governor Palin was referring to herself in the third person plural?
But pepper, this thread is about her response as to the responsibilities of the VP as it regards being the President of the Senate. Her debate response was an answer to the responsibilities of the VP s/himself.
No he’s tapdancing because he can’t admit when he’s wrong.
Here’s a video of a nice discussion of this topic between Chris Matthews and Nancy Pfotenpfeffer. Okay, not so much of a discussion as it is Chris Matthews taking her out behind the woodshed.
ouch.
Apparently Palin has said that the election is “in God’s hands”. So if she loses, does that mean God likes Obama better?
How can a Christian believe that an election is in God’s hands? Doesn’t that contradict free will?
Eerr - yes I would fault someone for saying that, we all know that the Queen is a figure head with only ceremonial power / duties that don’t actually mean anything. I have known this since I was around 10, and also that the Governor General is the Quuen’s representative (at least in New Zealand)
This one challenged his God:
I thought Nancy was going to cry near the end of that.
It’s also bullshit. The Vice President is certainly supposed to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes. To say that the entire role of the VP is to hang out and wait for the Prez to die is just as ridiculous as to say that the role of the VP is to go into the Senate and make important changes.
Yeah. Good thing nobody has said anything of the kind.
The VP is LIMITED by the constitution to 2 jobs
- Become pres at death etc
- Preside over the senate in 2 circumstances
a. cast tie breaking vote
b. certify the count of the electoral college
That is it. Just that. nothing more no advice ,no discussions…nothing.