Palin thinks the VP runs the Senate

[dilloduck]

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.

We're not trying to explain in 15 seconds to a third grader either. Just another cheap potshot.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

ain't that the truth Sho!



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....

So you don't think that the Executive Branch can broaden a Constitutional power?

 

[manifold]

SCOTUS is not the Constitution.

They are the last word on it however, whether you like it or not.

 

[manifold]

We're not trying to explain in 15 seconds to a third grader either. Just another cheap potshot.

pfft! You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

My point is taht her statement is Consitutionally correct. Practically it isn't. However, it is not beyond precednt for the Executive Branch to broaden its powers in this way. After all, the majority of a President's domestic powers are percieved powers. What does the Consitution have to say about the Executive's domestic powers?

It is not out of the realm of possibility taht the VP could take "charge" of the Senate.

 

[dilloduck]

pfft! You say that like it's a bad thing.

no--it's a different thing--get a third grader to read these posts about what a VP does and tell us how it goes. Context, Mani---context.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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!

There is a first time for everything. I believe that is what is known as a precedent.

BTW, Rounders was a great movie.

 

[Shogun]

So you don't think that the Executive Branch can broaden a Constitutional power?

no. which is why we have a little thing called checks and balances. If the executive were to dominate half of the legislative branch there would no longer be a check of power or balance of authority with the executive branch.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

no. which is why we have a little thing called checks and balances. If the executive were to dominate half of the legislative branch there would no longer be a check of power or balance of authority with the executive branch.

Then why would the Consitution allow for the VP to be the President of the Senate?

 

[Promissory Note]

There is a first time for everything. I believe that is what is known as a precedent.

BTW, Rounders was a great movie.

it's possible, but how probable?

Rounders is one of my FAVS..........wait....................pretty much any move about poker (and poker accessories) is my fav..... *shrugs*

 

[DavidS]

You understand of course that a VP has easy access to any Senator and can use that access to influence policy ?

doubt that'll happen with 70 dems in the senate!

 

[dilloduck]

doubt that'll happen with 70 dems in the senate!

Doesn't prevent her from trying. Look--she's explaining this to a third grader ( not even face to face). The faux outrage over this simplified explaination is about on a third grade level too. ( apologies to all 3rd graders )

 

[Shogun]

Then why would the Consitution allow for the VP to be the President of the Senate?

to break ties.. as is specifically written. I thought you suckers were supposed to take that document literally line by line and not assume such things like privacy and shit?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

to break ties.. as is specifically written. I thought you suckers were supposed to take that document literally line by line and not assume such things like privacy and shit?

I am taking it as itis specifically written. The Constitution defines the VP's duties as "President of the Senate." Show me where it says that this is a figurehead position. It doesn't. Two powers in that statement are outlined:

1. President of the Senate

2. In case of a tie,cast the deciding vote

It isn't practiced, but It could be.

 

[jillian]

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.

Actually, she is wrong. The only person who tried to pretend that the VP was "legislative" was Cheney. Biden was right that it was full of bull then and full of bull now.

 

[manifold]

Exactly what "power" is outlined by:

1. President of the Senate?

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly what "power" is outlined by:

1. President of the Senate?

Well let's pretend a third grader just asked YOU that question. Your answer ? (This is being filmed btw)

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Exactly what "power" is outlined by:

1. President of the Senate?

What isn't?

 

[manifold]

Well let's pretend a third grader just asked YOU that question. Your answer ? (This is being filmed btw)

I'd say "President of the Senate" is a title, and grants the VP the authority to break a tie. I really don't see how it enumerates any power beyond that. But I'm open to what our resident repository of constitutional scholarship, CrimsonHonky has to say about it.

 

[Shogun]

I am taking it as itis specifically written. The Constitution defines the VP's duties as "President of the Senate." Show me where it says that this is a figurehead position. It doesn't. Two powers in that statement are outlined:

1. President of the Senate

2. In case of a tie,cast the deciding vote

It isn't practiced, but It could be.

you are trying to find what you want to find in the words presented. Which, ironically, is how we squeeze PRIVACY out of the Constitution as well. President of the Senate is not a matter of influencing the legislative branch. Cheney was a fucktard for thinking so and, so too, is palin on the same yellow brick road to fucktardville.