I'm not a Senate expert but I don't think Tweety is fully correct regarding Palin's comments

[Hippo_Tron]

He keeps saying that the constitution says that the Vice President can only break ties and that's it. I don't think that's correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Vice_Presidency

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Adams.htm

According to these links, John Adams played a more serious role as President of the Senate than his contemporary counterparts.

Now I'm not a Senate historian but what it seems is that since Adams' tenure in office, Senate Rules have changed such that the President of the Senate is now simply allowed to preside and break ties. However, the constitution doesn't explicitly say that the Vice President's role has to be limited to tie breaking.

So while Palin is wrong about the Vice President's role in the Senate, Tweety keeps saying it's the constitution that says she's wrong and in reality I think it is Senate Rules that says she is wrong.

If anybody has anything to add or wants to disagree please do. I'm kind of a geek about this kind of stuff.

[WeDidIt]

1. President of the Senate is a ceremonial role

The PResident of the Senate does not set policy nor does the president of the Senate set the agenda, lthat's left to the majority party under the rules of the Senate.

So yes, that breaks down to one job, breaking tie votes which is the only time the Veep votes on teh floor of the Senate.

John Adams hated the job.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Yes today it is a ceremonial job

And while Adams hated it, he did get to play more of a role in determining the business of the Senate than contemporary Vice Presidents do.

I'm not saying Palin is right. But I'm saying that the constitution doesn't prevent the VP from having a more active role. The Senators themselves do that.

[WeDidIt]

46. That was under the rules of the Senate at the time

The rules we have today were, for the most part, written by Jefferson.

[renie408]

2. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote,

unless they be equally divided.

That's it. That is all that I could find in the Constitution about the Veep's Senate duties.

[Thrill]

3. VP should have no role in the making of Policy. There is a reason there is three branches of Gov

[daninthemoon]

4. the vp does not "run the senate" even cheney understands that.

either palin is completely ignorant, or has a purpose in mind to eradicate one of the prime objectibes of the seperation of powers between judicial, legislative, and executive.

[onenote]

5. the biggest difference is that the rulings of the presiding officer can be appealed to the senate

Originally, the rules of the Senate provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President , without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." In short, the VP, sitting as President of the Senate, was the sole judge of procedural issues (which can greatly impact the course of debate).


The current rules of the Senate still give the VP (acting as President of the Senate) a role in deciding questions of order, but the rulings of the presiding officer are now subject to appeal to the full Senate, which means the VP's actual power is pretty much non-existant.

[Two Americas]

6. Adams

Adams is unusual. He presided over and tried to run the darned thing. So long as the Senators didn't object, there was no reason why he could not do that. But he had no power and operated at the pleasure of the Senate. If the Senate wants the VP to preside, or to serve tea and crumpets as far as that goes, I think they could choose to do that. But the VP has no power over that decision. Ergo, no power period to take a more active role, as Palin suggests.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Agreed, but Tweety keeps saying it's a constitutional thing

Obviously Palin doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, that's nothing new. But I think Tweety is saying the constitution forbids the VP from having a more active role and that is also false. He should have consulted a Senate historian or somebody like Senator Byrd who really knows about Senate procedure if he wanted to refute Palin. Even better he should've had one of those people on his show to explain it.

[Two Americas]

11. it is

He is talking about the power given to the VP. The Constitution sets out specific and limited powers that are granted to the government and to certain officials. The VP is not granted the powers Palin is alluding to and hinting at.

The Constitution forbids any and all powers to the government that are not spelled out. It grants to the people any and all freedoms except what is specifically prohibited through a careful process. That forms the relationship between the government and the people, and is the very foundation of the theory of government upon which the Constitution rests.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. It also says this...

In Article I Section 5

" Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

That means that the Senate is given the power to determine its own Rules and Proceedings. Therefore, if the Senate were to write its rules to say that the Vice President should control the Senate's agenda (which it appears they did somewhat during Adams' tenure in the office), then the Senate is allowed to constitutionally do that. That does not conflict with the 9th and 10th amendments in any way.

[renie408]

16. And you think that is the same thing as Palin saying that the Constitution allows for the VICE

PRESIDENT to be more active in the Senate if THEY choose? Cause, you know, that is just not what I get out of it. During Adam's tenure in the office, they didn't exactly have a great deal of precedence to work with. Like NONE. He was the first one. Why are we comparing TODAY with 1789?

[Hippo_Tron]

18. READ THE OP

I did not say that Palin was right. Palin is a moron who probably doesn't even know who John Adams is.

I am saying that Tweety is refuting Palin with an argument that isn't academically sound. I'm saying that instead of having Pat Buchanan and some other guy on to discuss this he should've had a Senate historian or somebody like Senator Byrd (who knows basically everything about Senate procedure) on to refute Palin.

Somebody like that would know that John Adams did have a greater role but subsequent Senates have stripped the VP of this power instead of making the false argument that the constitution explicitly says the VP is only a ceremonial tiebreaker role.

[renie408]

24. The question isn't whether or not THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT...EVER

managed to wrangle more power out of the job than was specifically detailed in the Constitution. It is whether the Constitution allows for the Vice President to assume power of their own volition. And it doesn't. Tweety is right. The only duties of the VP mentioned in the Constitution is the tie breaking vote thing.

[Two Americas]

26. here is what you said...

"Palin is wrong about the Vice President's role in the Senate, Tweety keeps saying it's the constitution that says she's wrong and in reality I think it is Senate Rules that says she is wrong."

It is both. That is what you are missing. It is up to the Senate, it is not within the powers of the VP to take a more active role. If the Senate gave the VP a role - serving tea and crumpets for example - then it would be Constitutional. If the VP arbitrarily seized control of the refreshments for the Senate, that would not be Constitutional.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I agree with your interpretation completely

However Tweety's statement that "It's constitutional" makes me think that he hasn't consulted with someone who really knows Senate history and procedure. I wish that he would do that before going on television to comment on this.

[Two Americas]

35. one more time

Your argument is irrelevant, because Senate rules do not trump the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give the VP any expanded powers. Period. The Senate rules have nothing to do with this.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I think I simply read words different than you do

When somebody says "The constitution limits the President of the Senate to a ceremonial tie breaking role" I interpret that to mean that under no theoretical circumstances could the Vice President ever possibly have a greater role in the Senate. In actuality as we've discussed, the Vice President could in theory be given more power by the Senators.

Others interpret that statement to mean that the Vice President simply can't seize more power. In that case, it is a true statement and Senate rules don't matter.

[renie408]

42. Actually, I will have to see a transcript, but I don't think he said that.

What I heard was, "The only duty outlined in the Constitution is blah blah blah."

[renie408]

31. I also agree with this. I think Tweety was arguing about Palin assuming that SHE

got to decide how much of a role she had. THAT is what is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

[Two Americas]

36. yes

Of course. That is most definitely what she is saying. The Senate rules have nothing to do with this, nor does what John Adams did or didn't do.

The VP does not get to decide what powers the VP can exercise. No government official does. That is foundational to the legitimacy of our government, and that is why Palin's comments are alarming.

[Two Americas]

22. of course

The Senate could, as I said, ask the VP to serve tea and crumpets and put the VP in charge of refreshments if they so chose (and the VP were willing lol). So what?

[renie408]

14. I think Tweety has it dead on. There is all of ONE line in the Constitution that I could

find on the duties of the VP. It says they will preside over the Senate, but have no vote unless there is a tie. Period.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. In addition to what I've said below, "Preside over the Senate" is ambiguous

In many legislative bodies (The US House of Representatives for example), the presiding officer is responsible for determining what order the bills are considered. The constitution doesn't say "his only power is to vote when there is a tie" it just says that he can't vote unless there is a tie.

So in theory if the Senators were to let the Vice President determine the agenda (and if you read the links it appears that they did somewhat when Adams was Vice President) there is nothing in the constitution that bars it.

[renie408]

29. O-kay...I am typing REALLY slow here....

Palin.....said.....she....could....assume....more....power....if....she....so....desired....as....Vice....President. Tweety....said....that...was....Constitutionally....wrong.


He....is....right.


The Senate might decide to give the VP the ability to set the agenda, but the VICE PRESIDENT cannot do that. Again, Adams was FIRST. 230 something years ago. It is not like they 'stripped' the VP of power. They hadn't figured out how much power he should have yet. You gotta think in those first eight years they were wandering around a bit.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Alright, I agree with that completely

[AllentownJake]

25. The rules are written the way they are

because the Senators hated Adams. They pretty much enacted a speak only when spoken to rule after a year of Adams presiding.

[greenbriar]

8. NO the VP is just the tie breaker

.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Yes, the VP is just a tie breaker in practice

But if you read the links, that wasn't always the case. John Adams did more than break ties in the Senate. Since then the Senators have stripped the VP of power in the Senate.

My point is that Tweety keeps saying the Constitution says that the VP can't have a greater role when in reality it is the Senators themselves that prevent the VP from having a greater role.

[renie408]

12. WHAT role? This is a direct quote from the Constitution:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

And that's all it says about the VP's duties in the Senate. Where in that line does the Constitution give the VP a larger role? I guess they can lobby the Senate or twist arms or something, but they have NO legislative responsibilities. They cannot propose legislation and can only vote in a tie.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. According to Article I Section 5

" Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

This means that if the Senate wants to make its rules so that the Vice President has a greater role than just breaking ties it is allowed to do so. If you read the links in the OP it appears that they did this during John Adams' tenure in the office and have subsequently amended their Rules and Procedures so that the Vice President doesn't have those powers anymore.

[renie408]

20. I think that since Adams was the FIRST VP, they didn't really have it all nailed down

Why are you so hung up on Adams? And what Palin said in the Couric interview was that the Constitution allowed for the VP a more active role in the Senate if they wanted it. And it patently does NOT say anything like that. She keeps saying that the CONSTITUTION allows for the VP to have more power. It just doesn't. I am listening to it right now, as a matter of fact, she said, "...is in charge of the Senate and if they want to, they can get in there and do some good policies" (paraphrasing).

[BzaDem]

37. Your own quote hurts your case.

If the Senate has complete discretion as to the power of the VP, it is the Senate that has the power (not the VP). The Senate could appoint a dog catcher to run the place. The only power given to the VP by the constitution is to break ties. Any other "power" of the VP (in the past or now) is subject to the whims of the people that actually have power, just like the "power" of Senate clerks or staffers is determined.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. We've been over this, I interpret things differently

I'm not saying the VP can seize more power. I'm just saying, as you did, that the Senate could in theory give the VP more power.

I interpret statements like "The constitution limits the VP to a ceremonial and tie breaking role" to mean that under no theoretical circumstances could the VP have a greater role even if the Senators wanted to give it to him/her. Apparently others don't interpret it that way.

[Two Americas]

40. so what?

If the Senate makes the rules of its proceedings, then it is the Senate that has the power, not the VP. What could be more clear?

Adams did not have any expanded powers. He presided over the Senate on a daily basis at the pleasure of the Senate. They withdrew their pleasure. There are no implied expanded powers there. Besides Palin is not talking about that. She is talking about some imagined powers of the VP that can be exercised unilaterally, at her pleasure. There are no such legitimate powers - in the Constitution. Senate rules are a different issue. She could call for electing new Senators who would amend the rules to give her more of a role in the Senate, but that is not what she is saying, is it?

[trayfoot]

19. Totally Ceremonial Today - Tweety is correct.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. On that account yes, but not that the constitution mandates it be totally ceremonial

Senate rules and procedures say it is ceremonial. The constitution does not explicitly state that.

[AllentownJake]

23. The Senate handed John Adams his ass

He acted like what Palin is trying to say what she wants to do and our founding fathers in the Senate wrote rules that pretty much said other than banging a hammer to open and close sessions and breaking a tie he couldn't speak. Sarah Palin is dumb as a rock. Most of the Senators represent states and electorates many times the size of Alaska. They are better politians and more skilled at backroom deals. She tried to Preside over the Senate like Adams they will invoke the speek only when spoken to rule.

The constitution gives the VP no powers other than to become President in the event the President is unable to fufill his duties and to break a tie in the Senate.

[BlooInBloo]

27. You're completely wrong.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

30. What actual power would a Vice President have?

If she couldn't vote or be appointed to head committees, then what more could Palin do except grab a Senator on his way out to lunch and say something loony?

In your link about Adams, it said that he once persuaded Congress to vote against legislation he opposed and that he lectured the Senate on occasion. These are not powers and the Vice President can't keep the Senate in session or extend the time for business if no one wants to listen to a lecture. With a Democratic majority, I think there's a fat chance that the VP would be given the floor to address their body. And the article also says that he was threatened with a Senate resolution to silence him, after which he toned it down. And even if Palin were given the floor to vent her spleen, does anyone think she has the ability to persuade a group of people who, both Republicans and Democrats, would probably see her as a parvenu and interloper who hasn't paid her dues?

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Agreed completely

I'm just trying to have an academic debate about whether or not the Senators could in theory give the Vice President more power and it appears that we have answered the question and they can. The difference is that Palin is saying that she can seize more power, which she can't.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. I applaud you on raising the issue

and playing devil's advocate, if for no other reason than to try to see any possible reasoning behind Palin's and the right wing's position on expansion of the Vice Presidency. But I think Palin's cruisin' for a bruisin' if she thinks she can wield any real power over the Senate. Hopefully, we won't have to even get to that point.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Thanks and I agree completely

Again this is all academic because Palin will not be Vice President and if somehow she did become Vice President she probably wouldn't know where her chair is let alone how to go about trying to convince Senators to change her role.

[Erin Elizabeth]

38. Tweety's right.

I got into a huge debate with a coworker over this about a month ago and we both ended up doing a lot of research on it. It was a great learning experience, if nothing else.

But yeah, Tweety is right. Palin said the Vice President "runs the Senate" which is just patently untrue.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Here's the summary of what we've determined on this thread

The constitution says that the Vice President should be President of the Senate and only vote when there is a tie. It also says that the Senate shall determine its own rules and procedures.

It follows that the role of "President of the Senate" should be determined by the Senate. If the Senate wants to give the VP more power they can do that. But the VP cannot simply say "I should have more power" and take it. That would be unconstitutional.

I interpreted Tweety's words to mean that under no theoretical circumstances could the Vice President ever possibly have more power because the constitution says that. But others are saying that he was saying that the constitution prevents the Vice President from taking more power, which is true.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

45. Cheney has wielded stealth power

Behind the scenes, he has assumed a role similar to John Adams, twisting arms and keeping Republican Senators in line, but doing it in the back rooms beyond the eyes of the press. The latest example of this was his visit to Capitol Hill ahead of the Senate vote on the bailout bill. I imagine that over the last eight years, he's occasionally threatened Republican Senators with withdrawal of campaign support from his Chimp and Rove if he thought they weren't going to play ball with the administration. There's nothing to prevent a Vice President from speaking his mind behind the scenes and trying to persuade votes according to administrative policy. I'm not sure if that's what Palin has in mind. She can't take the role of a 101st Senator, however, and actually conduct business on the Senate floor unless she's given the floor.

[ProSense]

49. It's not just the VP,

theoretically the Senate can choose anyone as an officer. The bottom line is that the Senate is a separate branch of government and is solely responsible for running that body.

Palin is a fool.

[Bucky]

47. Adams did try to guide the Senate. They deeply resented it.

As a purely practical matter, Senators want to be equal club members. It's part of the "unwritten" Constitutional sets of traditions that the veeps stay out of club business. They're there to preside only. The Constitution may not require it, but decorum does.

[yellowcanine]

48. Actually that is pretty much it according to the Constitution.