Palin thinks the VP runs the Senate

[Jon]

she could? based on what authority Crimson? Article One of the Constitution is pretty clear what the VP duties are in relation to the Senate.

are you intentionally being obtuse?

Based on the Article just cited. Verbatim:

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

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

That's it. That's all Article One has to say about the VP.

 

[Shogun]

Trust me, stupid people who want to argue that Palin would have authority outside of breaking ties will quickly change their fucking tune when Biden tries to flex the same constitutional muscle they are suggesting...

 

[CornbreadOracle]

Of course she's right. You can play semantics about "in charge" and "preside" but the bottom line is.....she's right.

Libs just can't stand it when a woman is smart, pretty, accomplished AND a conservative.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

she could? based on what authority Crimson? Article One of the Constitution is pretty clear what the VP duties are in relation to the Senate.

are you intentionally being obtuse?

Based on the authority of the definition of the word "preside." You know, the root word for the word resident."

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So now being recognized to speak on the floor equals being IN CHARGE!

bwahahahahahaha!


What a maroon!

The VP is the President of the Senate. She could exert the authority to decide who is recognized to speak and who isn't. That is "in charge."

 

[manifold]

This thread discussion is a perfect example of the rampant hypocrisy and bias prevalent on this board. Had it been Biden who said the VP is in charge of the Senate, just about everyone who has commented thus far would be saying the exact opposite.


And for Ravi...IMO.

 

[dilloduck]

Trust me, stupid people who want to argue that Palin would have authority outside of breaking ties will quickly change their fucking tune when Biden tries to flex the same constitutional muscle they are suggesting...

Changing tunes is the name of the game, dude-----when it's to your advantage, its cool. When it's not, it's not cool. That's how childish partisan politics are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This thread discussion is a perfect example of the rampant hypocrisy and bias prevalent on this board. Had it been Biden who said the VP is in charge of the Senate, just about everyone who has commented thus far would be saying the exact opposite.


And for Ravi...IMO.

The only people in this thread that would be changing their tune if it were Biden is you liberal stooges.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

This thread discussion is a perfect example of the rampant hypocrisy and bias prevalent on this board. Had it been Biden who said the VP is in charge of the Senate, just about everyone who has commented thus far would be saying the exact opposite.


And for Ravi...IMO.

I would argue for Biden here to, if he had said it. Her statement is Constitutionally sound. It isn't practiced, but she isn't wrong. Biden wouldn't be either.

 

[Jon]

Trust me, stupid people who want to argue that Palin would have authority outside of breaking ties will quickly change their fucking tune when Biden tries to flex the same constitutional muscle they are suggesting...

Why would Biden bother? His team holds a majority.

 

[manifold]

The only people in this thread that would be changing their tune if it were Biden is you liberal stooges.

But still not with the swiftness and certainty of yourself.

 

[Shogun]

Why would Biden bother? His team holds a majority.

why wouldn't he? There seems to be a precedent to set, apparently.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But still not with the swiftness and certainty of yourself.

Find ANY post where I have EVER disagreed with the Constitution. Go ahead, I dare ya.

 

[Shogun]

Changing tunes is the name of the game, dude-----when it's to your advantage, its cool. When it's not, it's not cool. That's how childish partisan politics are.

I dont see a single person arguing that Biden rule the fucking senate when Obama gets elected... Can you point a single example of this out? In THIS thread or ANY other?

 

[Silence]

Trust me, stupid people who want to argue that Palin would have authority outside of breaking ties will quickly change their fucking tune when Biden tries to flex the same constitutional muscle they are suggesting...

ain't that the truth Sho!

Based on the authority of the definition of the word "preside." You know, the root word for the word resident."

I get the definition of preside Crimson, thanks.

LII: Constitution

nowhere in Article I Section 3 of the United States Constitution does it say that the VP has any authority to make policy or be "in charge" of the Senate. The VP presides over the Senate only insomuch as his/her vote may be needed to break a tie vote. Therefore it would be necessary to hear floor arguments for and against whatever legislation is being voted on.

I don't understand why the Repubs can't just admit what she said is stupid and move on.

The VP doesn't get in there and MAKE POLICY to improve lil brandon's life....

 

[CornbreadOracle]

Frankly, I would love to see Sarah Palin step into the reins at the Senate. She's the only one on the ticket who isn't a senator or a Washington insider. And after the last two years of screw ups by the do-nothing, lowest approval rating EVER Congress, topped off by the passing of the "Screw You, Taxpayers" bailout package, I'd be glad see her in there cleaning house. Goodness knows it needs to be done and I'll wager that Sarah Palin has bigger balls than Harry Reid ever thought about having.

 

[manifold]

I would argue for Biden here to, if he had said it. Her statement is Constitutionally sound. It isn't practiced, but she isn't wrong. Biden wouldn't be either.

Ok fine. If you want to take a very broad interpretation of what "in charge" means, then I'll concede to the technical accuracy of her statement. But in practical terms, being in charge to me means having considerably more authority than any VP could constitutionally exert over the Senate. And what's more, I guarantee we've all now given this statement a heckuva lot more consideration that she ever did.

 

[Promissory Note]

listen, if "presiding", "being in charge of", "overseeing" or whatever other synonomous verb is apropos in this instance over the senate were THAT important, we would've seen and heard a helluvalot more VP's doing it. The reality is, that being "president" of the senate is a figurehead position. Period. The ONLY time it actually carries weight is when a tie needs to be broken. And how often does that happen?? Other than that, all the "president of the senate" needs to do is show up during ceremonial occassions, look good and do no harm. So let's stop tryin' to make being "president of the senate" anything more than we KNOW it to be. That's like making the guy who throws out the ceremonial first pitch in the World Series some fuckin' cy young winning, 100mph throwin, ace.

GTFOHWTBS!

 

[manifold]

Find ANY post where I have EVER disagreed with the Constitution. Go ahead, I dare ya.

That's retarded. Nobody disagrees with it. People interpret it differently.


Or maybe you're saying that you've never disagreed with a single SCOTUS decision?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's retarded. Nobody disagrees with it. People interpret it differently.


Or maybe you're saying that you've never disagreed with a single SCOTUS decision?

SCOTUS is not the Constitution.