Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP does.

[Kulindahr]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

Like her, you've got it back to front. For the VP to go in and do daily functions as the Presiding Officer of the US Senate, he or she would need some affirmative authorizing power to do that (or be permitted to do it with the Senate's consent, in which case he wouldn't really be be in control).

I'm no more a Constitutional scholar than Sarah Palin is and would be more than happy to be proved wrong. But you've yet to come up with that authorizing power.

Until you do that, she isn't even technically right. Just plain wrong.

Nope.

The Constitution specifies that the Vice President is president of the Senate. That means that the Veep can go inb any morning, pick up the gavel, and preside.

Beyond that, it's a matter of what is meant by "in charge of". The Veep has no authority to drop in on committees, butt in on disputes, make speeches, or anything aty all which exceeds what Roberts' Rules of Order specify for the person with the gavel.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

The Constitution specifies that the Vice President is president of the Senate. That means that the Veep can go inb any morning, pick up the gavel, and preside.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong on that issue, but where does it say that's what it means?

Plus how can he do that without formally addressing the Senate, which the Senate site says he can't do. By informally addressing it?

As for Roberts' Rules of Order, unless they've been adopted by the Senate, which I don't know that they have been, they're persuasive at best.

But the point remains, that reference to them also suggests that Palin was wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong on that issue, but where does it say that's what it means?

Plus how can he do that without formally addressing the Senate, which the Senate site says he can't do. By informally addressing it?

As for Roberts' Rules of Order, unless they've been adopted by the Senate, which I don't know that they have been, they're persuasive at best.

But the point remains, that reference to them also suggests that Palin was wrong.

Well, the Senate started with Roberts' Rules of Order, but they've cut, pasted, mangled, mutilated, altered, rearranged, amended, addended, augmented, supplemented, adjusted, and whatnot to where their rules of order are something only senate staff can comprehend. But RRoO serves to illustrate.

And last time I was playing that parliamentary rules game, calling to order, calling the question, point of information or any other of those little bits of procedure don't count as "formally addressing".

Nevertheless... yes, while Palin was technically correct, by common usage of words such as "in charge of", she erred by misleading. About the most "in charge" I can think of that she would be within constitutional authority to do would be settling a point of precedence -- the equivalent of a referee.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

^ I take your point. But not only isn't "settling a point of precedence" not anything that the VP does (and on that I may well be wrong), but no one has yet pointed to anything that shows that he is empowered to do even that, except when he's breaking a tie.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

Spense, are you playing dense here?

The Constitution makes the Veep the President of the Senate -- i.e., the one who presides. All the way up to Tricky Dick Nixon, the understanding of that was that the Veep is the chairperson. Veeps till Nixon had their offices over by the Senate, and spent their time in the Senate, presiding.
Not being an actual Senator crippled them in ways sufficient to make one Veep remark that the vice presidency wasn't worth a picture of piss: they lack(ed) even the limited authority of an ordinary chairperson to lay down the gavel and address the group, because apart from the gavel, the Veep isn't a member at all (which is why he/she can't address the Senate except by invitation). The Veep not only can't address the Senate, he can't sit on a committee (the Chair by definition can't sit on a committee; only a member can, and again, without the gavel, the Veep isn't a member). In theory he might be able to engage in discussions of upcoming agenda, but since that's handled by committees....

It's one of the slickest ways to assign someone to oblivion that I've ever seen: give him the gavel, but in such a way that when he lays it down even for a moment, he has no authority to speak, or vote, or in fact to do much of anything but leave the chamber. The Veep is trapped in a limbo of being the equivalent of a court eunuch with tongue removed, able to point to procedures and rules, but otherwise to languish in silence.

It's enough to make me think that when a former veep dies and gets to the Pearly Gates, there will be a remission of 100,000 years in Purgatory waiting, reading "Served as Vice President, presiding in the Senate".
Well, at least until Nixon, who refused to be cooped up, wangled an office in the White House, and proceeded to lay a foundation for future vice presidential mayhem.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

^ Obviously, what you're saying is consistent with Palin being wrong in saying the VP controlled the Senate.

But. other than getting snippy about it, you don't really address the question posed.

The previous exchanges have been about the Constitution empowering the VP to be President of the Senate. But the resulting issue is who is empowered to define what that means.

If, as I suspect (and I may be wrong) it's the Senate, then the VP isn't really even in control of being a referee. He has to play within the terms of reference given to him by the Senate.

 

[Ramindra]

Re: Sarah Palin still doesn't know what the VP doe

The Vice President is not in charge of the Senate! He/she has no vote except when there is a 50-50 tie. He/she doesn't work with the Senators on legislation, doesn't chair committees or sit in or on committees. Thats what she said that was completely wrong!

The woman is an idiot!!

You took the words right out of my mouth. If someone was applying for a job as a street sweeper and during the interview gave indictaions that he/she did not have a bloody clue as to what street sweepers do, then I think the interview would be terminated and he/she would be told, "Don't ring us....."

This woman is applying for the job of VP and she does not have a bloody clue about the job description. She is talking rubbish.

Is that the person anyone would want or VP or, heaven forbid, Pres?

Just as a matter of interest, I wonder what the selection criteria are for the job of VP, and how many of those criteria she met, if any?