By longstanding tradition, the only time a Vice President acts in his capacity as “president of the Senate” is during ceremonial occasions such as the State of the Union address, and on the rare occasion that a close vote is expected on an important bill (in case he has to cast the deciding vote.)
It seems that the drafters of the constitution assumed that the vice president would take an active role in presiding over the Senate on a day to day basis, but it didn’t turn out that way, which seems odd to me because its not like the VP has much else to do.
My question is, what would happen if Joe Biden decided one day that he would just show up at the Senate every day and preside over it? I mean, it would be bucking tradition big time, and I’m sure there would be a lot of push back especially if he tried to throw his weight around on things like committee assignments and the like, but if he just showed up and said he wanted to preside, I don’t see any legal basis for preventing him from doing it. Any thoughts?
No, there isn’t. But the VP has very, very few powers if he decides to preside over the Senate. He would not be able to change committee assignments, in the example you used.
His main “power” on a day-to-day basis would be figuring out who to recognize to speak. For example, by tradition, the Majority Leader is entitled to be recognized before any other senator. If the VP chose to recognize another senator, well, so be it. But that’s a pretty weak power, I’m sure you’ll admit.
The presiding officer in the Senate can also decide some points of order, but not others. So there’s that, but it’s quite rare that a point of order is made.
The presiding officer in the Senate isn’t even entitled to speak since John Adams made a habit of interjecting his own views beyond the patience of sitting senators.
I suppose the VP could demand that a quorum was present at all times and deny unanimous consent resolutions insisting on regular order. Maybe just being a pain in the ass could get him a few power perks.
Lyndon Johnson tried it after he was elected Vice President in 1960. The majority of Senators (including those of his own party) stood up to him and told him it wasn’t going to happen. The Senate would be run by Senators and the Vice President would have only a symbolic role in normal operations. And if Johnson couldn’t do it, you can bet nobody else will ever try.
LBJ was notorious for being an arm twister, and a guy who wasn’t used to not getting his way. So, yeah if he couldn’t pull it off, Joe Biden wouldn’t stand chance in today’s gridlocked Senate.
IIRC early in the Nixon administration Vice President Agnew tried to do some lobbying on some bill the administration wanted passed. Senators from both parties quickly told him to stay out and that it wasn’t his place to do that…
IIRC, back around 2005, there was a crisis because a threatened Democratic filibuster was preventing the confirmation of some appointments (sound familiar?). There was a discussion of the “nuclear option” in which the VP would preside and allow a motion on “the previous question”. This is generally undebatable and, if passed, authorizes an immediate vote on the original question. This obviously violates senate rules and would be immediately appealed. The Republican majority could uphold the VP’s ruling and that would effectively end the filibuster with respect to presidential appointments. Now that the shoe is on the other foot (and the problem of judicial vacancies is getting urgent), this is likely to be proposed again. As happened before, the senate would likely come to an agreement to permit some appointments go through.
John Adams got involved in Senate debates early on…the David McCullough biography covers this well. But eventually he shrank back as his presence became a distraction for the overall goals of the Washington administration, which basically set the governing precedence for the VP not to participate in Senate business beyond casting the Constitutionally-mandated tie-breaking vote. Adams still holds the record for casting the most tie-breaking votes.
According to Bricker, the VP is in charge of the Senate. This statement does not stretch credulity to the limit; it is a fair and accurate reading of the Constitution and does not require taking unconventional interpretations of language or absurd benefits of the doubt to bask in its truthiness.
Hereis the beginning of that analysis, but it rears its head in many other threads. The gist is that the VP is in charge of the Senate, and could, if desired, exercise much more control over the body than has been noted to date.
IIRC one power the VP has that is rarely if ever used is that he can introduce legislation. The only reason I could think of is if the President wanted a populist piece of legislation that the Senate opposed. The bill wouldn’t go anywhere but the President could play the political game of “See, I wanted the law but the Senate didn’t.”
So the tradition of the Vice President not directly participating in Senate business got started because John Adams was an ass and pissed so many people off. Its interesting how much influence one individual can have on how our political system developed.
It doesn’t stretch credulity to the limit that the VP could be “in charge” of the Senate, based on what the Constitution says. Thing is, though, that isn’t how it actually works. This relates to a pet theory of mine that the US should actually be regarded as having a partially unwritten consitution. If history had turned out a little differently (i.e. if John Adams hadn’t been such an ass, or if a different person had been the first VP) then maybe we would have a tradition of the VP taking an active party in Senate business, but it didn’t and we don’t.
Isn’t that any organization, though? You could take two cities with identical charters calling for 5 councilmen and a mayor and one city might have a strong mayor that dictates policy that is rubber stamped 5-0 by the council unless he starts going crazy. The next city over might have a strong council with many matters decided on 3-2 votes and the mayor just being the unlucky sob who has to take telephone calls at 10pm about drunken teenagers in the alleyway behind Mrs. Jones’ house.
What is on paper has to be put into practice first. The very title “President” can confer immense powers or very little.
As far as the VP as President of the Senate, it seems strange that they would only give him a vote in case of a tie. It means that a tie vote that would usually cause a measure to fail would now pass. A vote with a +1 plurality couldn’t then fail because of the VP’s vote.
I wonder why the FFs wanted to allow the VP to push a measure through, but not stop it, seeing how the Senate was the “cooling off” body.
The Vice President is President of the Senate - that’s a Constitutionally mandated office. But the powers of being the President of the Senate are defined by the Senators (with the single exception of casting a tie-breaking vote).
So while the Vice President is guaranteed the title, he only has the powers that the Senators choose to give him. So he can’t introduce legislation, recognize members, call for votes, make appointments, speak during sessions, or do anything else of consequence unless the Senators give him that power.
Oh sure. But that’s part of his duties as Vice President of the United States and is unrelated to his duties as President of the Senate. The Constitution clearly defines the space-time continuum as an executive rather than a legislative area of control.