Is it a cause for concern that Palin doesn't even know her own job descripton?

[kane3o1]

Countdown with Keith Olbermann - The Official Web site- MSNBC.com

 

[Jon]

Is it a cause for concern that you're posting something we've talked about 12395791755797 and dissected 19835135641461617597597 different ways?

Keith Olbermann is an idiot. Palin clearly said, "If they want to, the VP can..." which the constititution clearly gives power to the Vice President to do. If you research the job of the President pro tempore and what they do in the Senate, you will see that they are only filling in during the absence of the Vice President. Meaning that if the VP WANTED, they could do the job of the President pro tempore every Senate session. Sorry, but Palin is absolutely 100% correct.

The Vice President is actually the highest ranking official in the U.S. Senate, but DOES NOT VOTE unless there is a tie. They are still entitled to reside over sessions, call votes, appoint chairs, and participate in discussions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

what the idiot pundits who masturbate under their desks when they talk about BHO seem to forget is that SP was addressing her answer to an 8 year old not a Constitutional scholar.

As an aside what about the Biden "Mark my words" remark about BHO being tested in his first 6 months? Why was he given such a pass when if Palin said the same thing, she would have been beaten bloody by the media.

here's the kicker, a "journalist" agreed with her.

Transcript of Palin interview with CNN - CNN.com

Palin: I'm concerned about and focused on just the next two weeks, Drew, and again getting that message out there to the American public. Thankfully, too, the American public is seeing clearer and clearer what the choices are in these tickets. I think, some revelation just occurred, not just with Joe the plumber but revelation occurred with [Democratic vice presidential candidate] Joe Biden's comment the other night that, he telling his Democratic financial donors saying that, he said mark my word, there's gonna be economic, and, or international crisis he said, if Barack Obama is elected, because he will be tested and he said there are four or five scenarios that will result in an international crisis with an untested presidential candidate in Barack Obama and -- first I think we need to thank Joe for the warning there. But, Joe's words there I think, can shed some light, too, in terms of the contrast you have in the tickets. John McCain is a tested leader. He has gone through great adversity. He has the scars to prove it. He has shown his true leadership. It hasn't just been all talk, and Joe Biden's comments there about an untested, as he had said in the primary, unprepared candidate to be president, I think was very telling.

CNN: Have you guys been briefed on any scenario like this?

Palin: On the four or five scenarios, that, well, who knows what Joe Biden was talking about, you know? It, all you have to do, though, is look back at Obama's foreign policy agenda and you can assume what some of those scenarios may be. As he considers sitting down and talking to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or [former Cuban President] Fidel Castro or [North Korean President] Kim Jong Il, some of these dictators, without preconditions being met, essentially validating some of what those dictators have been engaged in, that could be one of the scenarios that Joe Biden is talking about is, as a result of that, that proclamation that he would meet without preconditions being met first. That could be a scenario that results in a testing of our country, and, the four or five other scenarios that he's talking about, I don't know, I hope that Joe Biden will explain it.

CNN: I guess we have to wrap it up.

Palin: Yes.

CNN: I mean I could go on with you forever.

Palin: So could I, on that one especially.

CNN: [LAUGHS] I mean, did Joe Biden get a pass?

Palin: Drew, you need to ask your colleagues and I guess your bosses or whoever is in charge of all this, why does Joe Biden get a pass on such a thing? Can you imagine if I would've said such a thing? No, I think that, you know, we would be hounded and held accountable for, what in the world did you mean by that, VP presidential candidate? Why would you say that, mark my words, this nation will undergo international crisis if you elect Barack Obama? If I would've said that you guys'd clobbered me.

CNN: You're right. [LAUGHTER] You're right. Can I ask one more question?

regardless of what you or I think of Palin (and for the record I am no fan of hers) it is nice to fianlly get a "journalist" to agree that Biden got preferential treatment.

 

[Care4all]

Is it a cause for concern that you're posting something we've talked about 12395791755797 and dissected 19835135641461617597597 different ways?

Keith Olbermann is an idiot. Palin clearly said, "If they want to, the VP can..." which the constititution clearly gives power to the Vice President to do. If you research the job of the President pro tempore and what they do in the Senate, you will see that they are only filling in during the absence of the Vice President. Meaning that if the VP WANTED, they could do the job of the President pro tempore every Senate session. Sorry, but Palin is absolutely 100% correct.

The Vice President is actually the highest ranking official in the U.S. Senate, but DOES NOT VOTE unless there is a tie. They are still entitled to reside over sessions, call votes, appoint chairs, and participate in discussions.

this is the second time i've asked jsanders, noting that you may not have seen my first time asking...to be fair, but do you have proof that the president of the senate can appont chairs, call a vote all on his own etc...and also what sessions are you talking about that he/she resides over, the actual senate when in session as the parliamentory head or other committee meetings/sessions...?

the president of the senate has no senatorial legislative or decision making powers OTHER THAN parliamentary that i am aware of....and other than the tie breaker thing...

Palin was ignorantly WRONG with her answer...it could be she was trying to make it seem more interesting of a job than it is to the 3rd grader asking the question....i really am not 100% certain, but her answer was incorrect imo based on how she answered it and what the vp position in the senate as the president residing over parliamentary senate procedures truely entails, even if she did decide to eliminent the president pro tempore and sit behind the bench with gavel....

this is not to say she couldn't try to work with our elected senators more but this would not be and is not presently, a duty of the vp or president or president pro tempore in my understanding of it?

care

 

[Skull Pilot]

And BHO and Biden are 100% correct in everything they say?

 

[Care4all]

And BHO and Biden are 100% correct in everything they say?

i never said they were... i am not an obamaite, i may end up voting for him if i vote at all, but i have never been a goo goo gah gah fan...

care

 

[Jon]

this is the second time i've asked jsanders, noting that you may not have seen my first time asking...to be fair, but do you have proof that the president of the senate can appont chairs, call a vote all on his own etc...and also what sessions are you talking about that he/she resides over, the actual senate when in session as the parliamentory head or other committee meetings/sessions...?

The proof is in the constitution. It's written in American History. Vice President Calhoun assumed complete control over the Senate during his term, during which controversy flared over the role of the Vice President in the Senate. Although the Senate challenged Calhoun's authority, it was never officially voted that Calhoun was acting outside his realm of authority. And although no Vice President has ever involved themself in the Senate as much as Calhoun did, the power to do so is still written in the Constitution.

In fact, until Nixon's term as VP, it was common for the VP to reside over all hearings. Nixon apparently found this to be too troublesome, so he moved his office from the Capitol to the White House. Even the Presidents pro tempore have historically found the role of presiding over the Senate to be boring, so they often relinquish this role to new Senators so that they may familiarize themself with the process. It should be noted though that Presidents pro tempore are paid some $180,000 a year for their title.

The Vice President does not reside over special committee, only official sessions of Congress.

The Vice President also has the right to call to vote any measure other than the impeachment of the President. This call is only allowed by the President pro tempore, for obvious reasons. Before Johnson's impeachment, the President pro tempore actually fell in line of succession before the Speaker of the House. These positions were flipped. If a sitting President has no Vice President and they are impeached and removed from office, the President pro tempore (who may call to vote the impeachment AND vote in favor of it) would become President. This almost happened. Benjamin Wade, who was President pro tempore, called to vote the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. It passed, but he was acquitted, some believe because members of the Senate did not want Wade to be President. Wade, of course, voted for removal.

 

[Care4all]

The proof is in the constitution. It's written in American History. Vice President Calhoun assumed complete control over the Senate during his term, during which controversy flared over the role of the Vice President in the Senate. Although the Senate challenged Calhoun's authority, it was never officially voted that Calhoun was acting outside his realm of authority. And although no Vice President has ever involved themself in the Senate as much as Calhoun did, the power to do so is still written in the Constitution.

In fact, until Nixon's term as VP, it was common for the VP to reside over all hearings. Nixon apparently found this to be too troublesome, so he moved his office from the Capitol to the White House. Even the Presidents pro tempore have historically found the role of presiding over the Senate to be boring, so they often relinquish this role to new Senators so that they may familiarize themself with the process. It should be noted though that Presidents pro tempore are paid some $180,000 a year for their title.

The Vice President does not reside over special committee, only official sessions of Congress.

The Vice President also has the right to call to vote any measure other than the impeachment of the President. This call is only allowed by the President pro tempore, for obvious reasons. Before Johnson's impeachment, the President pro tempore actually fell in line of succession before the Speaker of the House. These positions were flipped. If a sitting President has no Vice President and they are impeached and removed from office, the President pro tempore (who may call to vote the impeachment AND vote in favor of it) would become President. This almost happened. Benjamin Wade, who was President pro tempore, called to vote the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. It passed, but he was acquitted, some believe because members of the Senate did not want Wade to be President. Wade, of course, voted for removal.

thank you for heading me in the right direction for my research on this....

after such, i found out alot on calhoun but also found out calhoun got the powers you spoke about FROM THE SENATE, and the SENATE took them AWAY from him and calhoun AGREED with the senate for doing such, as the strict constructionist, that he became...

read this, it explains much Jsanders

In the decade prior to 1826, the Senate had paid increasing attention to organizational matters, a clear indication of its increased workload, enlarged membership, and heightened importance as a national forum. It had established standing committees in 1816, revised its rules in 1820, and required the publication of regular financial reports by the secretary of the Senate after 1823. The body also enhanced the powers of the chair. Not only had it authorized the presiding officer in 1823 to appoint members of standing and select committees, but in 1824 it also directed the presiding officer to "examine and correct the Journals, before they are read," and to "have the regulation of such parts of the Capitol . . . as are . . . set apart for the use of the Senate and its officers." These changes reflect an institution in transition, conscious of its changing role in a rapidly altering political environment. After the March 30, 1826, spectacle, however, any discussion of Senate rules inevitably invited comment on the vice president's legislative duties and on Calhoun's conduct as president of the Senate.

On April 13, 1826, John Randolph offered a motion to rescind "so much of the new rules of this House, which give to the presiding officer of this body the appointment of its committees, and the control over the Journal of its proceedings." The debate continued on April 15, as several Calhoun supporters, including Van Buren, reviewed "the considerations that had led the Senate" to change its rules in 1823 and 1824." The fragmentary published accounts in the Register of Debates suggest that, when the Senate vested in the presiding officer the power to appoint committees, it had done so assuming that the president pro tempore would actually make the selections—a reasonable assumption when the debilitated Daniel D. Tompkins served as vice president. Randolph's cryptic remarks on April 12, when he notified the Senate that he would propose the rules changes on the following day, also hint that the Senate had given the presiding officer the responsibility of supervising the Journal because the secretary of the Senate had been negligent in performing this important task.

The reporter who followed the April 15 debate was careful to note that "the gentlemen who favored the present motion, as well as the one who offered it, disclaimed the remotest intention to impute to the Vice President an improper exercise of the duties devolved on him by the rules." But the debate took a personal turn after Randolph, sensitive to mounting and widespread criticism of Calhoun for failing to stifle his recent outburst, asserted that "it is not the duty, nor the right, of the President of the Senate to call a member to order." That right, Randolph argued, was reserved to members of the Senate. At the conclusion of the debate, the Senate voted, by overwhelming margins, to resume its former practice of selecting committee members by ballot, and "to take from the President of the Senate, the control over the Journal of the Proceedings."

Some contemporary observers, as well as modern day scholars, have interpreted the April 15 vote as a pointed rebuke of a vice president who had exceeded his authority and offended the Senate. On the other hand, the caveats of Van Buren and opposition senators suggest that, although some senators may well have intended to curtail Calhoun's authority, others were animated by concern for maintaining the Senate's institutional prerogatives. Calhoun, edging toward the strict constructionist stance he would champion in later years, seems to have approved of the changes, or at least to have accepted them with his customary grace." [N]o power ought to be delegated which can be fairly exercised by the constituent body," he agreed shortly after the vote, "and . . . none ought ever to be delegated, but to responsible agents . . . and I should be inconsistent with myself, if I did not give my entire assent to the principles on which the rules in question have been rescinded." Calhoun did bristle, however, at the suggestion that he had been negligent in not calling Randolph to order. He had diligently studied the Senate's rules, he informed the senators, and had concluded that, although the chair could issue rulings on procedural matters, "the right to call to order, on questions touching the latitude or freedom of debate, belongs exclusively to the members of this body, and not to the Chair. The power of the presiding officer . . . is an appellate power only; and . . . the duties of the Chair commence when a Senator is called to order by a Senator." He had been elected vice president by "the People," he reminded the Senate, and "he had laid it down as an invariable rule, to assume no power in the least degree doubtful."
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Calhoun.htm

 

[Jon]

At the conclusion of the debate, the Senate voted, by overwhelming margins, to resume its former practice of selecting committee members by ballot, and "to take from the President of the Senate, the control over the Journal of the Proceedings."

This is absolutely correct. However, no amendment to the Constitutition was ever made. The Vice President, theoretically, could still hold that power, as the Constitution still reads as such. That page even further states that the vote may be interpreted to mean that Calhoun was revoked of the powers of the President of the Senate, not that the Vice President was no longer able to hold such power - just Calhoun.

Now, I'm sure if any VP did try to exercise some power along these lines, the Senate would revolt and then pass such an amendment to permanently disable the President of the Senate, but as of this date, right now, no such amendment exists.

 

[Care4all]

This is absolutely correct. However, no amendment to the Constitutition was ever made. The Vice President, theoretically, could still hold that power, as the Constitution still reads as such. That page even further states that the vote may be interpreted to mean that Calhoun was revoked of the powers of the President of the Senate, not that the Vice President was no longer able to hold such power - just Calhoun.

Now, I'm sure if any VP did try to exercise some power along these lines, the Senate would revolt and then pass such an amendment to permanently disable the President of the Senate, but as of this date, right now, no such amendment exists.

no, that is not what this says, it is not in the constitution that he controls the journal, there is nothing in the constitution that says he appoints committe heads....on this you are wrong.

it specifically states that the senate turned over these responsibilities of THEIRS on to the pres of the senate thru rule changes and thru rule changes, they took them back....and calhoun AGREED with their decision.

Some contemporary observers, as well as modern day scholars, have interpreted the April 15 vote as a pointed rebuke of a vice president who had exceeded his authority and offended the Senate. On the other hand, the caveats of Van Buren and opposition senators suggest that, although some senators may well have intended to curtail Calhoun's authority, others were animated by concern for maintaining the Senate's institutional prerogatives. Calhoun, edging toward the strict constructionist stance he would champion in later years, seems to have approved of the changes, or at least to have accepted them with his customary grace." [N]o power ought to be delegated which can be fairly exercised by the constituent body," he agreed shortly after the vote, "and . . . none ought ever to be delegated, but to responsible agents . . . and I should be inconsistent with myself, if I did not give my entire assent to the principles on which the rules in question have been rescinded." Calhoun did bristle, however, at the suggestion that he had been negligent in not calling Randolph to order. He had diligently studied the Senate's rules, he informed the senators, and had concluded that, although the chair could issue rulings on procedural matters, "the right to call to order, on questions touching the latitude or freedom of debate, belongs exclusively to the members of this body, and not to the Chair. The power of the presiding officer . . . is an appellate power only; and . . . the duties of the Chair commence when a Senator is called to order by a Senator." He had been elected vice president by "the People," he reminded the Senate, and "he had laid it down as an invariable rule, to assume no power in the least degree doubtful."

 

[del]

Countdown with Keith Olbermann - The Official Web site- MSNBC.com

is it a cause for concern that joe biden can't count the number of letters in the word "jobs" accurately?

 

[NOBama]

It seems to me that if Palin becomes the next VP she intends to challange the issue. Otherwise, she wouldn't keep saying it.

That would certainly be an interesting scenario to watch play out.

 

[Jon]

no, that is not what this says, it is not in the constitution that he controls the journal, there is nothing in the constitution that says he appoints committe heads....on this you are wrong.

it specifically states that the senate turned over these responsibilities of THEIRS on to the pres of the senate thru rule changes and thru rule changes, they took them back....and calhoun AGREED with their decision.

The Constititution claims that the Vice President is the President of the Senate. The duties outlined by this position are not defined anywhere. Again, the vote on May 15, 1826 did not take these powers explicitly away from the President of the Senate, only way from John C. Calhoun.

There are some who even argue that because of bad grammar and punctuation, the Constitution may actually read that the VP appoints chairs.

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.

The bolded clause is the clause for concern. Because of bad punctuation (which may have been acceptable at the time), this could read that "The Senate shall choose their other officers in the absence of the Vice President."

Though, again, the argument would be hard to enforce and would require a vote to amend the Constitution.

 

[Jon]

It seems to me that if Palin becomes the next VP she intends to challange the issue. Otherwise, she wouldn't keep saying it.

That would certainly be an interesting scenario to watch play out.

Although she has no chance in hell at getting the power to appoint chairs, she may very well decide to preside over sessions of the Senate. She's a very active person, and she likes to be involved. She won't enjoying sitting around doing nothing.

 

[Care4all]

Although she has no chance in hell at getting the power to appoint chairs, she may very well decide to preside over sessions of the Senate. She's a very active person, and she likes to be involved. She won't enjoying sitting around doing nothing.

and i would like to see the vp's holding the appelate hammer as well, even if it is Biden...

 

[rayboyusmc]

what the idiot pundits who masturbate under their desks when they talk about BHO seem to forget is that SP was addressing her answer to an 8 year old not a Constitutional scholar.

No it's really your mental masturbation that is pathetic. She has been in this race this long and can't get the answer right. She speaks with the knowledge of an 8 years old. Listen to he comment. She doesn't know what she is talking about. Or it's just okay to make ups shit for 8 graders.

Only the true believers still think she could fight her way out of a paper bag with a sharp scissors in each hand.

McCain fucked up big time with this pick and it is now the albatross around his neck. She could probably skin the albatross and make a dress out it to save the RNC money.

 

[Jon]

No it's really your mental masturbation that is pathetic. She has been in this race this long and can't get the answer right. She speaks with the knowledge of an 8 years old. Listen to he comment. She doesn't know what she is talking about. Or it's just okay to make ups shit for 8 graders.

Yet...she was 100% correct in her response. Odd, really.

 

[Care4all]

The Constititution claims that the Vice President is the President of the Senate. The duties outlined by this position are not defined anywhere. Again, the vote on May 15, 1826 did not take these powers explicitly away from the President of the Senate, only way from John C. Calhoun.

There are some who even argue that because of bad grammar and punctuation, the Constitution may actually read that the VP appoints chairs.



The bolded clause is the clause for concern. Because of bad punctuation (which may have been acceptable at the time), this could read that "The Senate shall choose their other officers in the absence of the Vice President."

Though, again, the argument would be hard to enforce and would require a vote to amend the Constitution.

the senate chose all of their officers prior to him, they then... thru their rule change...delegated the responsibility to calhoun and they then rescinded their delegation thru rule changes again...

it was NEVER within the president of the senate's power delegated to him in the constitution, which was an appelate position in the senate, nothing more, and nothing less....he's the presiding judge so to say, over the session, making certain the senators are following their own rules and time limits..and there to break a tie....that's it.

i still think palin answered incorrectly and on this subject, and has dellusions of grandeur when it comes to the vp's job duties.

care

 

[Jon]

the senate chose all of their officers prior to him, they then... thru their rule change...delegated the responsibility to calhoun and they then rescinded their delegation thru rule changes again...

it was NEVER within the president of the senate's power delegated to him in the constitution, which was an appelate position in the senate, nothing more, and nothing less....he's the presiding judge so to say, over the session, making certain the senators are following their own rules and time limits..and there to break a tie....that's it.

i still think palin answered incorrectly and on this subject, and has dellusions of grandeur when it comes to the vp's job duties.

care

Really? Because Palin herself said nothing about appointing chair seats. She said basically what you just said. So if she's wrong, you are too, m'dear. And, you're not. So, where does that leave Palin?