Notes from Howard's Sabbatical from Working. The name comes from a 1998 lunch conversation. Someone asked if everything man knew was on the web. I answered "no" and off the top of my head said "Fidel Castro's favorite color". About every 6-12 months I've searched for this. It doesn't show up in the first 50 Google results (this blog is finally first for that search), AskJeeves says it's: red.
Not to suggest that the thought of Palin in charge of the Senate isn't scary, but is her wording, given that the question was asked by a third grader, significantly different from that of the constitution?
The vice president is specifically given the responsibility to break a tie, which is the only time the vote actually matters (excepting 2/3 requirements). My understanding is that the extent of the "preside over" portion is defined by convention rather than law.
But you're the supreme court buff, Howard. Have there been any rulings regarding the Vice President's role?
The VP's role is like the legislative power of the Queen of England. He opens the session and sits there during the state of the union. He only votes in the event of a tie and given that the congressional leaders are actually good at counting votes beforehand, that rarely happens. I don't think the VP does vote in a 2/3 case.
GIven that, I think it's even worse to tell a child that the VP is in charge of the Senate and can get a lot done.
Historically VPs have done mostly nothing except attend weddings and funerals. FDR was the first to invite his VP to cabinet meetings. It wasn't until Nixon under Eisenhower that he ran the meeting in the president's absence. Mondale under Carter was the first VP to get an office in the West Wing. I heard on NPR that Mondale wrote a famous memo to help define the office and Carter enacted it. Biden recently read it and asked him about it, apparently Obama would also use it as template. I don't think Bush or Quayle did much (thankfully) but Gore did a lot and then there's Cheney.
The only SCOTUS case I can recall involving the VP is the recent Cheney v. DC Court which was about releasing info of his energy task force. Before Cheney I don't think there was any debate about the role.
I'm not a constitutional scolar, but I think my point was that the constitution does not define the scope of the VP's power as President of the Senate other than to say he (or she, in this case) has no vote except in the case of a tie (Article I, section 3, clause 4). The following clause defines the president pro-tempore to have power when the VP is not there.
Thus the constitution does not seem to restrict the VP to a cerimonial role, despite the fact that this is the path taken by VPs in the past. This is convention and not law. Palin could, within the bounds set by the consistution, attempt to expand the traditional role of the VP (much like Cheney did). That's the scary part.
Wikipedia suggests Adams took such an active role, but backed off when he decided to run for president himself.
Well the case of the constitution not giving you power and you taking it is interesting, particularly for a strict constructionist who believes in a limited federal government as McCain says he is. The 10th amendment says all unenumerated rights are reserved to the states but no one can figure out what that means and i don't think it's ever been used to base a SCOTUS case on.
I suppose she could assume more power, but it can't conflict with what is described. So since lawmaking is defined as happening from voting and that's also defined it's hard to see how she could expand there. Since the other functions are defined by Senate rules (as Art I, Sec 5 says, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" I think these are set by majority votes) then she'd need a majority to change them, for things like setting an agenda or filibustering, etc.
Cheney expanded the role within the executive branch, which the president can unilaterally let him do (and did). This of course made Cheney's claim that he was part of the legislative branch and not executive to get around transparency laws even more absurd. I don't know of Cheney expanding his role in the Senate at all. Unless he threatened to shoot someone in the face. He did also once tell Sen Leahy to "go fuck yourself" but I don't think that counted either :)
4 comments:
Not to suggest that the thought of Palin in charge of the Senate isn't scary, but is her wording, given that the question was asked by a third grader, significantly different from that of the constitution?
The vice president is specifically given the responsibility to break a tie, which is the only time the vote actually matters (excepting 2/3 requirements). My understanding is that the extent of the "preside over" portion is defined by convention rather than law.
But you're the supreme court buff, Howard. Have there been any rulings regarding the Vice President's role?
The VP's role is like the legislative power of the Queen of England. He opens the session and sits there during the state of the union. He only votes in the event of a tie and given that the congressional leaders are actually good at counting votes beforehand, that rarely happens. I don't think the VP does vote in a 2/3 case.
GIven that, I think it's even worse to tell a child that the VP is in charge of the Senate and can get a lot done.
Historically VPs have done mostly nothing except attend weddings and funerals. FDR was the first to invite his VP to cabinet meetings. It wasn't until Nixon under Eisenhower that he ran the meeting in the president's absence. Mondale under Carter was the first VP to get an office in the West Wing. I heard on NPR that Mondale wrote a famous memo to help define the office and Carter enacted it. Biden recently read it and asked him about it, apparently Obama would also use it as template. I don't think Bush or Quayle did much (thankfully) but Gore did a lot and then there's Cheney.
The only SCOTUS case I can recall involving the VP is the recent Cheney v. DC Court which was about releasing info of his energy task force. Before Cheney I don't think there was any debate about the role.
I'm not a constitutional scolar, but I think my point was that the constitution does not define the scope of the VP's power as President of the Senate other than to say he (or she, in this case) has no vote except in the case of a tie (Article I, section 3, clause 4). The following clause defines the president pro-tempore to have power when the VP is not there.
Thus the constitution does not seem to restrict the VP to a cerimonial role, despite the fact that this is the path taken by VPs in the past. This is convention and not law. Palin could, within the bounds set by the consistution, attempt to expand the traditional role of the VP (much like Cheney did). That's the scary part.
Wikipedia suggests Adams took such an active role, but backed off when he decided to run for president himself.
Well the case of the constitution not giving you power and you taking it is interesting, particularly for a strict constructionist who believes in a limited federal government as McCain says he is. The 10th amendment says all unenumerated rights are reserved to the states but no one can figure out what that means and i don't think it's ever been used to base a SCOTUS case on.
I suppose she could assume more power, but it can't conflict with what is described. So since lawmaking is defined as happening from voting and that's also defined it's hard to see how she could expand there. Since the other functions are defined by Senate rules (as Art I, Sec 5 says, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" I think these are set by majority votes) then she'd need a majority to change them, for things like setting an agenda or filibustering, etc.
Cheney expanded the role within the executive branch, which the president can unilaterally let him do (and did). This of course made Cheney's claim that he was part of the legislative branch and not executive to get around transparency laws even more absurd. I don't know of Cheney expanding his role in the Senate at all. Unless he threatened to shoot someone in the face. He did also once tell Sen Leahy to "go fuck yourself" but I don't think that counted either :)
Post a Comment