"My job is to run the Senate" (Palin)

[webfusion]

In a "News Conference" (in front of third graders), VP Candidate Sarah Palin declared that the job of the Vice President is to run the Senate of the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_el_pr/palin_vice_president_s_job

Bzzzzzzzz. Wrong.

[Puppycow]

Vice President of the United States

As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber.[2]

[Pookster]

You'd think someone would've explained the separation of powers to Palin by now. The VP only casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate. There are no official legislative duties beyond that. The VP isn't a member of any committees. The majority party leader effectively runs the Senate.

[Cleon]

How is it that she still doesn't know what the VP does?

She admitted not knowing before she was picked.
She messed it up during the VP debate.

And still nobody's pulled her aside and said, "look, this is the job description?" They can spend $150,000 making her look good, but a five-minute summary of what she is going to be doing as Vice President is just too damn much?

It's just like the Wasilla mayor that the Daily Show interviewed the other day, who couldn't even explain what the city government did. Funny, that.

[Puppycow]

I'm afraid that article misquotes Palin. Here's what she actually said:

"That's a great question, Brandon, and a vice president has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the president's agenda, they're like the team member, the team mate to that president," Palin said.

"But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job," she said.


I also watched the youtube clip, and she did not use the verb 'run' in that answer, but rather 'in charge of'

It's a pedestrian answer to a softball question, but the article seems to be based on a false premise.

[chipmunk stew]

I'm afraid that article misquotes Palin. Here's what she actually said:



I also watched the youtube clip, and she did not use the verb 'run' in that answer, but rather 'in charge of'

It's a pedestrian answer to a softball question, but the article seems to be based on a false premise.
That's all well and good, but the VP isn't "in charge of" the Senate any more than it "runs" it. Seems to me a distinction that doesn't change its utter wrongness. :con2:

[Puppycow]

That's all well and good, but the VP isn't "in charge of" the Senate any more than it "runs" it. Seems to me a distinction that doesn't change its utter wrongness. :con2:

There are two issues:

1) She should be quoted accurately regardless.
2) 'In charge of' is vague enough to be sort-of right. Isn't the President of the Senate 'in charge of' it? At least in theory if not in practice.

[not_so_new]

I'm afraid that article misquotes Palin. Here's what she actually said:



I also watched the youtube clip, and she did not use the verb 'run' in that answer, but rather 'in charge of'

It's a pedestrian answer to a softball question, but the article seems to be based on a false premise.

Sorry......

so if they (VP's) want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes

... but can you explain to me how this would happen? Because I agree with chipmunk stew, the distinction doesn't change her utter wrongness.

[boloboffin]

Sorry, Sarah, but John Adams :rule10ed that pooch right about the time Baranov moved to Alaska.

[not_so_new]

There are two issues:

1) She should be quoted accurately regardless.
2) 'In charge of' is vague enough to be sort-of right. Isn't the President of the Senate 'in charge of' it? At least in theory if not in practice.

Again.... the "in charge of" comment is not really 100% wrong (but it is misleading). The problem is that VeeP's don't make "policy changes" at all. They can break a tie, nothing more.

"so if they (VP's) want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes"

There is no question about it, that is wrong.

[chipmunk stew]

There are two issues:

1) She should be quoted accurately regardless.
I agree. We should avoid mistakes that leave us open to red herring arguments.
2) 'In charge of' is vague enough to be sort-of right. Isn't the President of the Senate 'in charge of' it? At least in theory if not in practice.
Without the "so..." clause, I'd agree. But as not_so_new pointed out, she sketched out what she meant by "in charge of", and it's totally wrong.

[Jimbo07]

I want Obama to win for many reasons, not least of which I mentioned in the $150 mil man thread.

What I don't want is for Obama to win just because his opponents are running an absolute Gong Show of a campaign! It would feel tainted...

[TheJim]

She is honestly one of the dumbest people I have heard. She is a fraud and I am happy that the press has finally been forced to call someone out on this. She has no idea what the VP does except to go on shopping sprees. She is the biggest lair to ever be on a presidential ticket, see the daily dish for the 15 I think its on big lies. The stuff she lies about are not the normal political lies either of word play, exaggeration, etc, hell some fo them are just dumb outright lies about dumb stuff. She is unethical, see her dealings as mayor and governor, surrounding herself with yes men and acting on personal and professional grudges.

She has no political smarts either despite what we have been told. Yeah, she took advantage of situations in Alaska but in the big leagues she has been an adjunct failure. She did not understand that going on a 75k shopping spree at Marcus is a horrible move when you portray yourself as down home wolf killa and spend a total of 150k on cloths in a month. That is more than what 80 percent of the public makes in a year? If she knew how to campaign she would have said no to the excess and stuck with a 10 to 15k budget that no one would begrudge her for. But, now this will be a story for a day or two and late night fodder for the rest of the election. She could not see how well McCain's response to an angry supporter helped so instead of coping that and appealing to the center she claims to not have heard it.

I have to go here as this is one of her big qualifications for VP, she is actually a bad role model for mothers and a rather bad mom. Her oldest son is an alleged junkie that was basically forced into the military because his grades where so bad that no college wanted him. She allegedly kicked her oldest daughter out for getting knocked up, now she is a teen mom err mom to be, she has missed basically the last year of school, has no plans for college so basically a drop out flying around on Alaskan tax payer money. Her youngest daughter seems to have missed the last two months of school to shield mommy from the mean Philly fan.

This joke is getting worse and worse the more we know about her.

[dudalb]

You'd think someone would've explained the separation of powers to Palin by now. The VP only casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate. There are no official legislative duties beyond that. The VP isn't a member of any committees. The majority party leader effectively runs the Senate.

Actually, the Veep is technically the presiding officer of the Senate, and can preside over it, but that is NOT the same as running it. Normally the Veep leaves that job to the Majority Leader,even when they are of different parties.
Not that being presiding officer has that much power. Roberts of "Roberts Rules Of Order" is pretty much in charge.

[Pookster]

I'm afraid that article misquotes Palin. Here's what she actually said:



I also watched the youtube clip, and she did not use the verb 'run' in that answer, but rather 'in charge of'

It's a pedestrian answer to a softball question, but the article seems to be based on a false premise.


The VP isn't in charge of the Senate either. It doesn't matter which word you use.

[Pookster]

Actually, the Veep is technically the presiding officer of the Senate, and can preside over it, but that is NOT the same as running it. Normally the Veep leaves that job to the Majority Leader,even when they are of different parties.
Not that being presiding officer has that much power. Roberts of "Roberts Rules Of Order" is pretty much in charge.


Good clarification. Thanks!

[Pookster]

Actually, the article quotes her correctly ...

"But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job," she said.


The rest of what she says indicates that the VP has legislative duties beyond what the Constitution specifies.

[Kaylee]

Its great that she made such a stupid comment. Perhaps it will convince the Republican Party that its not worth the trouble to steal the presidential election this year.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Someones going to have to pull her NWO membership. The VP is only supposed to run the Senate after her team has been elected. :duck:

[davefoc]

There are two issues:

...
2) 'In charge of' is vague enough to be sort-of right. Isn't the President of the Senate 'in charge of' it? At least in theory if not in practice.

I noticed that too. She was vaguely correct in theory and completely wrong in practice. I don't think she deserves the benefit of the doubt here, though.

The vice president has no power over the senate. There are no duties enumerated in the constitution except for tie breaking. The title of president of the senate does not provide any actual powers over the senate. And the people who actually have power over the senate probably aren't going to be too enthused to have Ms. Palin tell them that she's really the one in charge.

ETA: I wrote this before all the intervening posts and posted it after. I notice now that I said essentially the same thing as no_so_new and a few others.

[Upchurch]

I think Palin is absolutely correct. It is a little known fact that all the issues that effect Brandon and his family and his classroom are always tie votes in the Senate. Half the senators just really don't like Brandon.

ETA: someone vying for the position ought to be able to do better than be sort-of correct about what the position is.

[webfusion]

Well, this was a group of Third-Graders. A "News Conference" for a group of 3rd-Graders.

How about if Sarah Palin, Senate-Leader Extraordinaire, takes a few hours from her busy schedule of discussing things with Third Graders, and appears on a live news-interview program like 'Face the Nation' or 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, and lets her fellow Americans across this land really see what's what. No scripts. No editing.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, this was a group of Third-Graders. A "News Conference" for a group of 3rd-Graders.

How about if Sarah Palin, Senate-Leader Extraordinaire, takes a few hours from her busy schedule of discussing things with Third Graders, and appears on a live news-interview program like 'Face the Nation' or 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, and lets her fellow Americans across this land really see what's what. No scripts. No editing.

I understand there is a great book called The Pet Goat that she could read. The precedent has been set. :)

[dudalb]

From Wikipedia on the Veep as President Of the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States is designated by the Constitution as the President of the Senate. The Vice President holds a tie breaking vote in the Senate and does not usually preside over the Senate. Since its conception, the role of casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate has been exercised 242 times. The Vice President of the United States with the most tie breaking votes is John Adams with 29. If there is no sitting Vice President then the President pro tempore of the United States Senate or "President pro tem" serves as President of the Senate. The President pro tem also serves in this role in the Vice President's absence, or if the Vice President assumes the office of President of the United States. In practice, freshman senators are traditionally assigned the role of presiding over the Senate in order to learn Senate procedure.

So technically the Veep has the power to preside over the Senate, but in reality almost never exercises that power. And the amount of power given the President of the Senate is indicated that newbie Senators are given that task to learn Senate procedure. I don't think that qualifies as "running" the Senate.
So there a little more here then breaking ties, but not much more.
And the Senate does not take kindly to outsiders..and they consider the veep to be an outsider...who throw their weight around. This has nothing to do with party affliation. There are all kind of stories of the White House sending the VP down, in a meeting with members of the President's party,to lay down the law and the Senators..from his own party, mind, telling him to get stuffed.

[Pookster]

From Wikipedia on the Veep as President Of the Senate:



So technically the Veep has the power to preside over the Senate, but in reality almost never exercises that power. And the amount of power given the President of the Senate is indicated that newbie Senators are given that task to learn Senate procedure. I don't think that qualifies as "running" the Senate.
So there a little more here then breaking ties, but not much more.
And the Senate does not take kindly to outsiders..and they consider the veep to be an outsider...who throw their weight around. This has nothing to do with party affliation. There are all kind of stories of the White House sending the VP down, in a meeting with members of the President's party,to lay down the law and the Senators..from his own party, mind, telling him to get stuffed.

Here is a bit more ...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/22/palin-takes-heat-for-saying-vp-in-charge-of-the-senate/

According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the vice president is the "President" of the Senate, but has no executive position when it comes to presiding over the chamber.

Donald Ritchie, a historian in the Senate Historical Office told CNN that Palin's comment was an "overstatement" of what her role would be.

"The vice president is the ceremonial officer of the Senate and has certain ceremonial functions including swearing in new senators and can vote to break a tie," he said. "It’s a relatively limited role. It's evolved into a neutral presiding officer of the Senate.

Ritchie also noted recent vice presidents have played a behind-the-scenes lobbying role on Capitol Hill for an administration's policies, but called it "somewhat limited."

"It's not comparable to the Speaker of the House who is certainly in charge of the House," he said. "The slogan that political scientists use is that the House is ruled by the chair and the Senate is ruled by the floor…the senators are in charge of the Senate."

[joobz]

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
President of Senate = Presiding Officer. A honorary position with no actual authority but to enforce Parlimentary Procedure.
President pro tempore = Presiding Officer who "fills in" for the VP, while away. Again, a honorary position given to the most senior senator.

Actual Presiding duties are often given to the junior senators as a means of training in parlimentary procedure.


In other words, it's a poopy, thankless job with no actual legislative authority.

[Ziggurat]

The rest of what she says indicates that the VP has legislative duties beyond what the Constitution specifies.

Not really. I suspect all she's talking about is schoozing with senators, browbeating them on occassion, to support whatever legislation the president wants. No official capacity is required. Sort of like how whips operate: they don't have any constitutional powers beyond those of ordinary members, but they can wield significant influence.

Funny thing, though: while everyone is quibbling over what Palin meant, Biden's gaffe during the debate about the role of the vice president seems to have gotten a free pass. He said (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html),
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote.

This is simply wrong. The VP is always the President of the Senate, and and can preside over the senate whenever he (or she) wants to. The only exception is in cases of impeachment against the president. Yet Biden's unambiguous factual mistake about the powers of the vice presidency got a free pass and Palin's statement is being attacked. Why the double standard? Personally, I don't think either statement has much significance.

[geni]

She is honestly one of the dumbest people I have heard.

I don't think this is a case of stupidity. She crammed somewhat on what the VP role is and the not that she was given likely covered that yes the role includes the position of President of the Senate. It may have failed to mention that beyond tie breaking votes this is pretty much a papper title. Result that palin legitimately draws the wrong conclusion but the campanin trail doesn't really give time to correct that. The other three have either a lot or a fair bit of experence of procedures so don't need to spend the time looking them up.

[geni]

This is simply wrong. The VP is always the President of the Senate, and and can preside over the senate whenever he (or she) wants to. The only exception is in cases of impeachment against the president. Yet Biden's unambiguous factual mistake about the powers of the vice presidency got a free pass and Palin's statement is being attacked. Why the double standard? Personally, I don't think either statement has much significance.

Because biden's statement is pretty much the equiverlent of "The Queen has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn". Not technicaly true (for example I think she still has the right to declair war) but in practical terms the statement is correct.

[joobz]

Personally, I don't think either statement has much significance.
Biden doesn't have a credibility problem. Palin does.
For good, or for ill, she is a newcomer and doesn't have much background story to work from. As such, every mistake, every statement carries that much more weight.

The fact that she has had such limited interaction with the press only magnifies this point.

Biden, on the other hand, is old hat. While this gives him a background of dirt to dig up on, it also gives him the general acceptance of a person who is at least capable of functioning in washington.

[Pookster]

Not really. I suspect all she's talking about is schoozing with senators, browbeating them on occassion, to support whatever legislation the president wants. No official capacity is required. Sort of like how whips operate: they don't have any constitutional powers beyond those of ordinary members, but they can wield significant influence.


She states it in the capacity ("so,") of being "in charge of the Senate". Given how muddled her replies tend to be to questions though, you may well be correct in your suspicion.

[joobz]

She states it in the capacity ("so,") of being "in charge of the Senate". Given how muddled her replies tend to be to questions though, you may well be correct in your suspicion.

But you don't need to be "in charge of the Senate" to inact influence on the senate. You could easily do the cheerleading/lobbying as VP without that title. So, again, I do not see how this interpretation minimizes her error.

[leftysergeant]

Palin is Dick Cheney with lipstick and better skin.

Biden is right in that he separates the VP from the actual legislative process.

[Pookster]

This is simply wrong. The VP is always the President of the Senate, and and can preside over the senate whenever he (or she) wants to. The only exception is in cases of impeachment against the president. Yet Biden's unambiguous factual mistake about the powers of the vice presidency got a free pass and Palin's statement is being attacked. Why the double standard? Personally, I don't think either statement has much significance.


He's actually rather accurate with what he said ...

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote.

The only authority the President Of The Senate has is to vote in a tie. The VP has no other formal executive or legislative function in the Senate. The other duties of the President of the Senate are basically ceremonial. It's not an executive position when it comes to presiding over the Senate. The Senate chooses a President pro tempore to preside day to day in the absence of the VP, but the role is many times given to freshman Senators to learn procedure too.

[Pookster]

But you don't need to be "in charge of the Senate" to inact influence on the senate. You could easily do the cheerleading/lobbying as VP without that title. So, again, I do not see how this interpretation minimizes her error.


I agree as well, but [palin accent]ya know[/accent], as muddled as her replies tend to be, who knows what she actually meant. :D

[aerosolben]

He's actually rather accurate with what he said ...
Zig's criticism is correct, as he's referring to this line:

to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote.

The bolded bit is, in fact, not accurate. It's a minor point, and not terribly consequential, but one that Biden could stand to make correctly, IMO. The rest of the statement was fine.

[Ziggurat]

The only authority the President Of The Senate has is to vote in a tie. The VP has no other formal executive or legislative function in the Senate.

Not so. That's the only constitutionally specified power the VP has (though as President of the Senate, the VP has other minor administrative powers which, per the constitution, the Senate makes the rules for). But as aerosolban pointed out, the VP presides over the senate whether or not there's a tie, contrary to Biden's claim. So Biden is simply and unambiguously wrong.

It's not a big deal that he's wrong (his services wouldn't exactly be missed in non-tie situations), but what Palin said isn't a big deal either. She was answering a question asked by a third grader, demanding that her answer pass muster with constitutional scholars is ridiculous. If you've ever tried to explain something complex to someone with very little background in the subject (which applies to third graders on almost any subject), you may find yourself telling not-quite-truths to try to simplify it, and that's no big deal. But as I said, there's a double standard: Biden's error goes unnoticed, and Palin's (which, really, is no more consequential) gets jumped on.

[Tricky]

Palin is Dick Cheney with lipstick and better skin.

I strongly disagree. Dick Cheney is smart. Evil, but smart.

FWIW, I think this is a minor point. She's talking to third-graders, fer chrissake. If she says "run" rather than "preside over" I am not worried that she is somehow poisoning young minds.

There are plenty of things to ding Palin about. This is not one of them.

[Ziggurat]

Palin is Dick Cheney with lipstick and better skin.

If only. The VP debates would have been a blowout if Palin had Cheney's mastery of national political issues.

Biden is right in that he separates the VP from the actual legislative process.

Well, not quite. The VP's ONLY constitutionally specified power is as a legislator (a limited one, granted, but still a legislator). NO executive powers are granted to him by the constitution. Many of the executive roles taken by the VP nowdays (in an unofficial capacity) wouldn't have even made sense for the job as originally formulated (when it went to the runner-up to, and hence presumably the political adversary of, the president). So from a constitutional perspective, there's actually a very good argument to be made that the VP is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

[Pookster]

Not so. That's the only constitutionally specified power the VP has (though as President of the Senate, the VP has other minor administrative powers which, per the constitution, the Senate makes the rules for).



I meant authority per the Constitution. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Pookster]

So from a constitutional perspective, there's actually a very good argument to be made that the VP is part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.


If you can eliminate Article II, then it might be a very good argument. Until then, not so much of one.

[Boo]

Factually Gov. Palin is correct but in current practice she is wrong; however, there is historical precedent for the VP running the Senate.

Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm


During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.

During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.


Given that the historical role of the VP in the Senate is a duty usually handled by Freshman Senators so that they can learn the procedural function of Congress it would make sense for McCain in discussing her role as VP to have her primary duty be that of the historical function. She is obviously not well versed enough in national issues to be of much assistance in the role that modern VP's have filled. Having her spend the greater part of her time where she will surrounded by discussion of these issues and learning the ins and outs of how Washington functions isn't necessarily a bad idea.


My guess she based her answers on what she has been told her function as VP would be and is in line with the Constitutional duties of the Office of Vice President.



Boo

[Ziggurat]

If you can eliminate Article II, then it might be a very good argument. Until then, not so much of one.

On what basis do you make that claim? Nothing in the constitution actually specifies that the VP is part of the executive branch. The president and the VP share a common election procedure under Article II, but that's it - Article II gives the VP NO powers except (again) as President of the Senate. And Article II is not solely confined to the executive branch either - a big part of Article II describes the legislature's role (including the VP as a member of the Senate) in electing the next president and VP, for example, and section 4 covers pretty much everyone in government.

[thaiboxerken]

It's a pedestrian answer to a softball question, but the article seems to be based on a false premise.

I don't agree. With the entire context of what she said, "running" the Senate is the message she sends across.

[BenBurch]

"My job is to ruin the Senate" (Palin)

There.

Fixed it for you.

[aerosolben]

On what basis do you make that claim? Nothing in the constitution actually specifies that the VP is part of the executive branch.
Actually, nothing in the constitution specifies who is in what branch - it merely assigns powers that fall into those sphere, and uses the terms branch for article headings. We can't just treat people mentioned under those headings as members, because, for example, article 2 provides for impeachment of all "civil officers".

However, Title 3 of the US Code does allude to the Vice President as a member of the Executive Branch, with provisions for staffing for the execution of his executive duties (see sections 106 and 112). Never directly stated, though.

Also note, that in Public Law 108-83, the office of the Vice President is allocated funds as a member of the Legislative branch. I wonder if there is precedent - after all, we know who the Vice President was during the 108th Congress.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Vice President of the United StatesLooks like you failed to read up on the actual role of VP in regards to the Senate just as Palin did.

[Pookster]

On what basis do you make that claim? Nothing in the constitution actually specifies that the VP is part of the executive branch. The president and the VP share a common election procedure under Article II, but that's it - Article II gives the VP NO powers except (again) as President of the Senate. And Article II is not solely confined to the executive branch either - a big part of Article II describes the legislature's role (including the VP as a member of the Senate) in electing the next president and VP, for example, and section 4 covers pretty much everyone in government.

Actually, nothing in the constitution specifies who is in what branch - it merely assigns powers that fall into those sphere, and uses the terms branch for article headings. We can't just treat people mentioned under those headings as members, because, for example, article 2 provides for impeachment of all "civil officers".

However, Title 3 of the US Code does allude to the Vice President as a member of the Executive Branch, with provisions for staffing for the execution of his executive duties (see sections 106 and 112). Never directly stated, though.

Also note, that in Public Law 108-83, the office of the Vice President is allocated funds as a member of the Legislative branch. I wonder if there is precedent - after all, we know who the Vice President was during the 108th Congress.


I quoted both since my reply addresses elements of both posts ...

I agree that the Constitution is, in part, a separation of powers between the branches of Government. I also agree that you can't just treat people mentioned under those Article headings as members. However, I also believe it is quite apparent from the Federalist papers what the Founders believed constitutes the three branches of Government. The Articles address the powers each branch has. Article II addresses the powers of the Executive Branch. But there is another thing being addressed as well in the various Articles - checks and balances. The VP plays a role in the checks and balances as President Of The Senate. The President also plays a role. The President can call either or both Houses into emergency session as part of the checks and balances. The President can also set an adjournment date for Congress if both Houses can't agree on a date.

I believe Article II is quite clear in its reflection of the beliefs of the Founders. The decision to select the VP using the same basic method as the President was no accident either. Hamilton's discussion in Federalist 68 highlights the desire that the Senate not select the VP because of the checks and balances intended by the role of the VP as the President of the Senate. Just as the President has certain powers to break deadlocks in Congress, so does the Vice-President. To construe that it makes the VP a part of the Legislative branch is folly, IMO.

[aerosolben]

However, I also believe it is quite apparent from the Federalist papers what the Founders believed constitutes the three branches of Government.
Cite?

The VP plays a role in the checks and balances as President Of The Senate. The President also plays a role. The President can call either or both Houses into emergency session as part of the checks and balances. The President can also set an adjournment date for Congress if both Houses can't agree on a date.
Granted, but only the VP's role implies any membership in the body.

The decision to select the VP using the same basic method as the President was no accident either. Hamilton's discussion in Federalist 68 highlights the desire that the Senate not select the VP because of the checks and balances intended by the role of the VP as the President of the Senate.
Meh - checks and balances is a bit of a loaded term, here - Hamilton makes no allusions to the Executive branch in his discussion.

Just as the President has certain powers to break deadlocks in Congress, so does the Vice-President. To construe that it makes the VP a part of the Legislative branch is folly, IMO.
Again, the VP is ascribed powers as a member of the body, the POTUS as an external arbiter.

Further, you did not address my comment that Congress funds the Office of the Vice President as (quite explicitly) a member of the legislative branch.

Note that Hamilton also says: "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications...It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue." So I wonder how much we can trust his judgement... :D

[Pookster]

Cite?


Not a specific cite, but the Federalist papers as a whole. I'll admit it's my opinion is based on my reading of them and knowledge of the Founders for the most part. But, I'll also admit I'm no real authority on them.


Granted, but only the VP's role implies any membership in the body.


If you ignore the checks and balance role, then I can agree.



Meh - checks and balances is a bit of a loaded term, here - Hamilton makes no allusions to the Executive branch in his discussion.


Federalist 68 is a discussion of electing the President. I see that as a definite allusion to the Executive from the very start. I believe it is clear that Hamilton is discussing the desire that the Vice-President not be beholden to the Senate. He is not considered to be part of the body of the Senate.

Again, the VP is ascribed powers as a member of the body, the POTUS as an external arbiter.


I believe Hamilton would disagree ...

It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description.

The statement indicates to me that the VP isn't considered to be "of their own body".


Further, you did not address my comment that Congress funds the Office of the Vice President as (quite explicitly) a member of the legislative branch.


I didn't because to me it seems to be a recent anomaly by Congress. I could be wrong though.

Note that Hamilton also says: "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications...It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue." So I wonder how much we can trust his judgement... :D


The Founders often seem like a naive bunch, don't they. :D

[moon1969]

Only thinking missing is Palin claiming that God speaks to her. Didn"t George W. Bush say that God speaks to him? Palin is a dangerous religious woman. Remember the separation of church and state. Palin is perfect example of why people shouldn"t mix religion with politics.

[davefoc]

I'm sort of past all this parsing stuff.

What she said as a practical matter was bizarrely wrong. No amount of parsing can change that. She made a gross misstatement about the role of the vice president in the US government.

But why did she do it?

Was it an effort to just punch up the story a bit for a younger audience?

Was it just a little brain fart that happens occasionally to us all?

Did she actually believe that if she became the VP she was going to be "in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with senators and make a lot of good policy changes..."?

Did she see her role as VP as a leader of the McCain administrations liaison with the senate and this was just her awkward way of stating her idea of what role she was going to have in a McCain administration?

I don't have any idea. Those all sound plausible to me. What might help here is if she had made any follow up comments about what she said there. Has she?

[aerosolben]

Not a specific cite, but the Federalist papers as a whole. I'll admit it's my opinion is based on my reading of them and knowledge of the Founders for the most part. But, I'll also admit I'm no real authority on them.
That's fine - I certainly don't believe you're being dishonest, I just think you may be reading too much into it, so I was looking for specific passages.


If you ignore the checks and balance role, then I can agree.
The reason I don't like checks & balances here is because, while the VP is indeed, acting as a check/balance on the Senate, it is not clear his actions in that regard are on behalf of the Executive.

Federalist 68 is a discussion of electing the President. I see that as a definite allusion to the Executive from the very start. I believe it is clear that Hamilton is discussing the desire that the Vice-President not be beholden to the Senate. He is not considered to be part of the body of the Senate.

I believe Hamilton would disagree ...

It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description.

The statement indicates to me that the VP isn't considered to be "of their own body".
The key word for me there is "elect". The Senate does not elect their own President - he is elected by the people at a national level (as originally intended, separately from the President - the only other office to be done at that level, which could account for the electoral similarity). He is not drawn "out of their own body", but there is no evidence that, once elected, he remains so removed.

I didn't because to me it seems to be a recent anomaly by Congress. I could be wrong though.
Actually, I have since found references to the VP in Title 2 of the US Code (see chapter 3 particularly).

[noch1Narr]

back to the original quote by Palin:
..."THEY'RE in charge of the Senate"...
referring to the President & the VP....so this woman not only has by now not got the VP's role right, but also the President's....
Yes, she was talking to Third graders, but factually she was way off base, no?

[jberryhill]

Isn't the President of the Senate 'in charge of' it?

Hair splitting but the "run" misquote would be more accurate than "in charge of".

To "preside" over the Senate is simply to bang the opening gavel, recognize motions and speakers, and simply manage conduct by the rules of order.

That would be one sense of "run".

"In charge of", to me at least, implies some sort of authority, and in the larger context she made it seem as if it was a policy-agenda controlling function.

IMHO, quoting her accurately makes the statement somewhat more breathtaking.

The OTHER Constitutional duty of the VP, she does well not to mention, because it's the other VP duty that causes the most concern with her having been picked in the first place.

As far as anything else the VP might be asked to do by the President, that's up to the President. Obama has made it clear that Joe Biden will be a key foreign policy advisor, and what's interesting is that Obama expressly noted that one of the reasons he picked Biden was not to have a yes-man, but to have someone who would engage him in policy making discussions.

I could not seriously see McCain relying on Palin to tell him the time of day. What he knew of her before the pick was minimal at best, and I don't believe he has come to see her as an asset to a McCain White House brain trust.

Yes, she was talking to Third graders, but factually she was way off base, no?

Actually, she was talking to a reporter about a discussion with third graders. In an even larger context, one may note that she found that to be the most intriguing discussion she's mentioned having with anyone in her "vast variety of information sources."

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Did she actually believe that if she became the VP she was going to be "in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with senators and make a lot of good policy changes..."?...It was a credible statement straight from her own mouth. This was what I found most disturbing and most revealing of Palin's ignorance. She also reiterated, "if the VP wanted to" or something to that effect later in the conversation. Palin seemed to be assuming that she would be in there introducing bills and arguing their merit along with the rest of the Senate. She was asked this before and has had time to brush up on the role of the VP. There is no excuse this time, parsing or not the woman is naive when it comes to the functioning of the federal government.

[dudalb]

Somehow standing up on the podium, and making decisons on points of order is not what I think Palin meant when she said she is going to "run" the senate.
Palin does have the right to go every day the Senate is in session and "preside" over the business...although it is a very strong tradition that the Veep does not do so. If she thinks she can introduce legislation, get involved with commitees, and otherwise "run" the Senate she has another thing coming.

And it will be coming from the GOP members of the senate as well as the Dems. If the Senators have one trait, regardless of party, it is that they resent any attempts to interfere with what they consider the independence of the Senate . In that they are just like their originals in Ancient Rome.

I swear, the Founding Fathers gave the job as Presidient of the Senate to the Veep to give him something to do(with no real significence) aside from being the backup if something happens to the President .
"

[dudalb]

I could not seriously see McCain relying on Palin to tell him the time of day. What he knew of her before the pick was minimal at best, and I don't believe he has come to see her as an asset to a McCain White House brain trust.

It will be a repeat of what Bush Senior did with Quayle: An almost total freezing out from any real role in decison making.