The Vice President DOES, in fact, have some control over The Senate.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

....and CAN, according to The Constitution, preside over the Senate if he or she wishes.

What's to stop Caribou Barbie from trying to run the show in the Senate. That role was clearly meant to be more than just a tie-breaking role. What if she decides to exercise it?

Would it go to the Supreme Court? Would they wait until they appoint a few more justices?

What exactly does "preside" mean? Can she call votes or stop votes?

(note: I think she has about as much chance as a Moose that wanders across her daddy's lawn - but what about going forward)

Clause 4: Vice President as President of Senate; Voting Power

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

Section Three provides that the Vice President is to serve as President of the Senate, although in practice, the Vice President usually presides over the Senate only when a tie in the voting is anticipated. Neither the Vice President nor the full-time President pro tempore of the Senate preside over the body's routine sessions; instead, the President pro tempore typically deputizes a junior member of the assembly to fill the role. As a non-member of the assembly, the Vice President has no vote unless the Senate is equally divided, in which case the Vice President has what is called a casting vote. This is as contrasted with the Speaker of the House, who has always been chosen from among the Members of the House of Representatives,<38> and as a Member of the assembly can vote to both make or break a tie. This provision is typically seen as one of the "checks and balances" built into the U.S. Constitution, whereby the 3 branches of the federal government (Congress, President, and the courts) are given the ability to influence the others. In this case, the Vice President's ability to preside over the deliberations of the Senate and (more importantly) break tie votes, presumably in favor of the presidential administration's preferences, allows the Executive Branch to influence the behavior of the Senate (and, consequently, Congress).

Further information: U.S. Vice Presidents' tie-breaking votes

Clause 5: President Pro Tempore and Other Officers

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of the President of the United States.

The Senate may elect a President pro tempore to act in the Vice President's absence. Although the Constitutional text seems to suggest to the contrary, the Senate's practice has been to elect a full-time President pro tempore at the beginning of each Congress, as opposed to making it a temporary office only existing during the Vice President's absence. As is true of the Speaker of the House,<38> the Constitution does not require that the President pro tempore be a senator, but by convention, a senator is always chosen; since World War II, the senior member of the majority party has filled this position.<40> The President pro tempore, as a member of the Senate, is free to make or break a tie vote like the Speaker of the House, but in the event that the possibility of a tie vote is anticipated the Vice President is routinely on hand to ensure that the Executive Branch's policy preference prevails.

Other Senate officers include the chairs of the various committees, the Secretary, Sergeant at Arms, Chaplain, Parliamentarian, Curator, Historian, and Librarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States

[Justyce]

1. Since Joe Biden will be the VP, she won't

have shit to do with it, so no worries! :)

[Pyrzqxgl]

2. For what it's worth. You might check a bit of history.

When Lyndon Johnson became Vice President in the Kennedy administration (after having been majority leader in the Senate) although he was much
more familiar with the workings of the Senate than Palin could ever hope to be, he was allowed little or no authority in Senate policy. Likewise John
Nance Garner (who had also been majority leader) was allowed even less authority in FDR's first administration. He's the guy who compared the VP to
a "bucket of warm shit."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Allowed by whom? If you are talking about the president "allowing"...

... I think all bets are off with this gang.

If you are talking about the Senate "allowing" then where do we go for guidance? The Constitution says the VP "presides" over the Senate IN ADDITION TO casting a tie-breaking vote.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Senate rules, which are passed by the Senate without...

the help of the House, White House, or Vice President.

Both the House and Senate have their rules which fill in the holes left by the Constitution and define how things are really done.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. That's what I figured could be the ultimate check -

The Constitution specifically grants rule making to the two house.

They could put her chair in the parking lot - LOL

[EFerrari]

25. The principle at issue is the separation of powers. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. But isn't there also an issue of checks and balances.

Clearly The Senate checks the executive by approving appointments etc.

What's the check on the Senate? "Presiding" over the Senate and casting tie-breaking votes.

My question is: How far can "presiding" be interpreted either by Palin et al. or her pointy headed friends on the court - that's the question.

I guess my whole point of this thread was to illustrate that I don't think SP's comments were necessarily gaffes. I think it was a shot across the bow for what they have in store - either this time around or next time around.

I also think SP is the first of the wave of her ilk - meaning the Christian fundamentalists that have been brewing in local/state offices around the country.

And I don't, for a second, think a stacked court wouldn't side with the minority rethugs if it came to that.

I also think the minority thugs in the senate would stand in front of the camera and side with the fascists. Look at the surprise people had today regarding Orin Hatch's comments about Obama...........these people will not let their bony claw off the levers of power without a fight (to paraphrase Maher).

I believe out only hope is an Obama win AND his ability to get A LOT done in his first term. I have a lot of hope. So far it looks pretty good.

[EFerrari]

29. The checks are veto and the Supreme Court.

And, I think you're right about Palin. She and her fellow Nazi cattle are not concerned with the niceties of our Constitution or of tradition.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. THAT'S what scares me.

Bush v. Gore.

The "nuclear" option that we came THIS close to seeing a few years ago.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. What Do You Mean It's More Than A Tie Breaking Role? It Isn't.

That's all the power they have. That's it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. Maybe in recent practice but not according to The Constitution.

The Constitution even calls for a President pro tempore to preside in the VP's absence. What if the VP doesn't chose to be absent?

What does preside mean? That's the question.

[onenote]

14. preside means to apply the rules of the senate, not to make the rules of the senate

The rules of the Senate, per the express terms of the Constitution, are made by the Senate. SOmeone has to sit as a presiding officer to administer those rules and per the constitution, its the VP if he/she shows up to preside. But per the rules, the Senate can overrule any ruling made by the presiding officer, whether the presiding officer is the VP or the President Pro Tempore.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Yes According To The Constitution.

Do you really think if such power was available, no VP to date would've ever used it? With as power hungry as cheney is, do you think for a second that he wouldn't have?

Use your head. There is no power granted. You can stop being concerned now.

[NYC Liberal]

38. The answer to your question is in the Standing Rules of the Senate

Which you can read in full here: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/Rules091407.pdf

The presiding officer's role (and usually it's neither the VP nor the President pro tempore) is procedural. They do not make policy, they enforce it.

The reason why the Vice President almost never does it is because of just that. The current rules run over 90 pages. And the presiding officer has to be pretty familiar with them, which is why it's usually alternated among Senators (of the majority party).

So Palin can go preside all she wants. But I suspect she'll hurry out pretty quickly after everything grinds to a halt because she has no clue about how the Senate runs.

[stillcool]

5. Edit to add the rest of your entry...

President of the Senate

Main article: President of the Senate

As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3), the vice president oversees procedural matters and may cast a tie-breaking vote. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the vice president not use his or her position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes. As President of the Senate, John Adams cast twenty-nine tie-breaking votes—a record that no successor except for John C. Calhoun ever threatened. His votes protected the president's sole authority over the removal of appointees, influenced the location of the national capital, and prevented war with Great Britain. On at least one occasion he persuaded senators to vote against legislation that he opposed, and he frequently lectured the Senate on procedural and policy matters. Adams' political views and his active role in the Senate made him a natural target for critics of the Washington administration. Toward the end of his first term, as a result of a threatened resolution that would have silenced him except for procedural and policy matters, he began to exercise more restraint in the hope of realizing the goal shared by many of his successors: election in his own right as president of the United States of America.

In modern times, the vice president rarely presides over day-to-day matters in the Senate; in his place, the Senate chooses a President pro tempore (or "president for a time") to preside in the Vice President's absence, and the Senate maintains a Duty Roster for the post, normally selecting the longest serving senator in the majority party.

When the President is impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States of America presides over the Senate during the impeachment trial. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where he or she was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

One duty required of President of the Senate is presiding over the counting and presentation of the votes of the U.S. Electoral College. This process occurs in the presence of both houses of Congress, on January 6 of the year following a U.S. presidential election. In this capacity, only four Vice Presidents have been able to announce their own election to the presidency: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H. W. Bush. At the beginning of 1961, it fell to Richard Nixon to preside over this process, which officially announced the election of his 1960 opponent, John F. Kennedy. In 1969, Vice President Hubert Humphrey announced he had lost to Nixon. Later, in 2001, Al Gore announced the election of his opponent, George W. Bush.

Vice President John C. Calhoun became the first vice president to resign the office. He believed he would have more power as a senator. He had been dropped from the ticket by President Andrew Jackson in favor of Martin Van Buren. Already a lame-duck vice president, he was elected to the Senate by the South Carolina state legislature and resigned the vice presidency early to begin his Senate term

[JNelson6563]

6. Yeah, and the incoming Dem Senate would SO let her do that

Not to mention the Rethug Senators. Politicians are big on turf and the protecting of it.

Julie

[Lex]

8. Palin said "IN CHARGE OF THE SENATE"

Is the VP "in charge" of the Senate?

NO.

She said the VP can "get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes."

NO.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The branches are coequal...nobody in the Executive Branch has "control" over the Legislative Branch

Get your fucking head out of your ass.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. First of all - fuck you.

Second of all - I was trying to spark a debate and get in to the pointy head of someone like Palin and her ilk and what they had in store.

Third of all - fuck you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Aw

[shadowknows69]

24. Fuck you back troll

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Huh?

[shadowknows69]

27. Did I stutter?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. Why don't you run along now. Adults are trying to have a conversation.

I'm pretty sure the other poster and I have said our pieces.

[onenote]

12. what is to stop her from exercising control over the senate? The Senate

As presiding officer, Palin can make procedural rulings. And per the rules of the Senate, those rulings can be appealed to and overruled by...the Senate. And Palin can't do diddly-shit about it. Why? Because the Constitution, Aritlce I, Sec. 5 states "Each House may determine the rules of it proceedings...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. I agree... but...

Can their "rules" override her specifically enumerated rights to preside over the chamber?

Can "preside" be expanded to blocking or calling votes?

Would a stacked supreme court agree with her?

Two things have stood in these wackos way for the last 40 years.

The courts and The Senate.

We all know what they are up to with the courts (justice sunday anyone?) but I feel like this is a shot across the bow by these fascists.

I'm playing more devil's advocate than anything.

[onenote]

33. Her role is to preside. The Senate's role is to set the rules by which she presides.

That much is clear on the face of the Constitution.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. I agree with you.

I just think there is a little too much wiggle room.

I'm trying to determine where this line of thinking comes from. I suspect it's some sort of John Bircher type reasoning but I haven't researched it yet. Some "ron paul" freeper on a construction board I frequent has been spouting this line for a while now - he also thinks the VP is part of the legislature...............which leads me to point out the ridiculousness of THAT very idea and how it relates to real sane people like you and I.

My point is I wouldn't put it past them.

[onenote]

35. I think its because she dumb as a bag of rocks

[Hassin Bin Sober]

39. LOL! That's a distinct possibility.

I would bet a hundred bucks that line has been fed to her by her Alaskan right-wing friends from Waslia......"Black Helicopter Steve" and friends. Did you read that Salon article?

[TexasObserver]

15. Do you really think Gidget can do things Cheney never dared try?!

The senators run the senate, and the VP can like it or stuff it.

The custom of the last 200 plus years is the precedent, and no court will order the Senate to do anything.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. You have more faith than I do.

We were THIS close to having the "nuclear option" enacted a couple years ago - upsetting our little gentleman's agreement we call the senate. And the supreme court ruled in Bush v. Gore in a way that did, in fact, throw out 200 plus years of precedence.

Like I said - I think Obama pretty much has it in the bag so it's a moot point... but I don't think her "exercise authority" quip was a mistake.

My worse case scenario (in the event of a rethug win) is: The rethugs stacking the court a little more, the VP "exercising her authority" over the Senate by calling/blocking votes and the supreme court ruling that the "rules" enacted by the Senate members can't infringe on her constitutionally mandated "right" to "preside" over the Senate.


Tell me how these craven mofos WOULDN'T try and pull something like that.

[RoyGBiv]

20. You're making too much out of this ...

Absent an extralegal coup, which by definition makes this Constitutional theorizing meaningless, the rules of the Senate are well established. The President of the Senate has no more authority in that role than the President pro tempore, and that position is by and large administrative.

As a small illustration, do you know who the current President pro tempore of the Senate is without looking it up?

There are some gray areas when it comes to whether the President of the Senate is at large a legislative or executive position, but that has little to do with the power they hold in that position.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. I did, in fact, know cause I'm a bit of a fan of his Constitution waivin' self.

Haven't we already had a constitutional extra legal coup? Isn't that how we got derchimpnfuhrer?

[RoyGBiv]

22. And how much authority does Byrd exert?

Not much.

Reid directs the business of the Senate, as majority leader. That's the most powerful position in that body, which is why Lieberman's been able to get away with being an ass for so long.

As to whether we've had an extralegal coup, that's an open question. And, if that changes how much power any future Vice Presidents have then, again, the Constitutional theorizing you're doing has no meaning.

Regardless, Cheney hasn't been able to do much with the Senate since '06, which sorta goes against your point.

The bottom line is that a Democratic Senate, even if the unthinkable occurs and puts that beast and his chippy in office, is not going to allow her to do anything with the position. The alternative is the dissolution of the Legislature as we know it, and if that happens, we won't be here talking about it like this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. What Byrd, or Cheney for that matter, HAVE done has no bearing on my argument.

Call me a pessimist or whatever but I believe we are watching the de-evolution of the republican party before our very eyes. We've gone from Nixon (a crooked political genius) to Reagan (an idiot puppet who could speak) to GHWB(a nice guy puppet) to GW (a fucking moron puppet)................to a pair of tits with a rifle .... and HALF the fucking country is considering voting for her (yes, her). That's what scares me the most - people would actually vote for her.



That said, I honestly believe Obama has it in the bag but that doesn't mean I will sleep for the next two weeks. I also believe he has a better than 50/50 chance of making a big difference and rolling back 20 plus years or Reaganomics....

...but if he doesn't pull off some major changes in the next four years I think we are in for a rough ride and we WILL see Mosselini again - assuming she doesn't get indicted in Alaska.

Anyway, thanks for the respectful comments/debate as opposed to the douche-bag up-thread. I guess I'm really looking for someone to, as Rachael puts it, "talk me down."

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Get a therapist

[RoyGBiv]

40. Actually, it does ...

Cheney has power in the form of connections and knowledge of where the bodies are buried, both metaphorical and otherwise I imagine.

Palin is an idiot whose own party in Alaska pretty much loathes her, and the mainstream of the party in the rest of the country doesn't respect her and certainly doesn't fear her. People fear Cheney, which is how he does what he does, and he hasn't been able to lord over the Senate.

To carry off what you're proposing, the person needs power, and Palin has none and wouldn't have any even if she were elected. She's a joke.

[honestduel]

36. Under extreme circumstances only

And Palin did not specify that.

[Lex]

37. Under what "extreme circumstance" is the VP "IN CHARGE OF" the Senate?

Do tell.