Thiebear Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Some just will not concede, no matter the evidence... They might have Last November, and they might Nov 6th, but not right now. God forbid someone would want to actually work with those in the Senate.. Maybe ask them to work more than 70days a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'm not sure this would be illegal mind you - Just a different way to doing things and one that becomes a legitimate campaign question. Do we want that? If McCain/Palin win they will face a large Democratic majority in the House and Senate I think having her actually work with Senators will help in crafting legislation that works for both sides and doesn't cause acrimonious shut downs Now Harry Reid could just tell her go to hell and sit in the President's chair. But having her work with Senators to pass laws that a President McCain would sign and the Democratic majority finds would work well, I don't see an issue with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 AgainI will continue to point to that KEY phrase over and over and over again. My defense in this argument is the US Constitution. Yours is, well honestly I am not sure what it is, or what argument you have Mine is that you and Palin both have very little understanding of what the Vice President does on a daily basis. You are quoting the Constitution, yet you seem to neglect the fact that the Vice President practically NEVER GOES TO THE SENATE WHILE IT IS IN SESSION. You seem to think that the job description she gave to the question "what does the VP do" is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Mine is that you and Palin both have very little understanding of what the Vice President does on a daily basis. You are quoting the Constitution, yet you seem to neglect the fact that the Vice President practically NEVER GOES TO THE SENATE WHILE IT IS IN SESSION. You seem to think that the job description she gave to the question "what does the VP do" is a good one. It is actually the ONLY job description the VP is given in the Constitution. And of course I am going to quote the Constitution on this. Where else am I supposed to find out what the duties of the VP are? Other then "President of the Senate" the VP has no other official duties as doled out by the Constitution. So again, I am not sure what your argument is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I think having her actually work with Senators will help in crafting legislation that works for both sides and doesn't cause acrimonious shut downs Not a chance in hell this ever happens. You are missing the point that the VP doesn't actually get in there to craft policy. The party of the President will listen to what the President wants, but they don't let people from the executive branch (VP included) help write policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 Who cares. Less then .5 percentTrying to get a "gotcha" on Governor Palin on THIS is rather stupid when there are so many other things you can The VP "presides over the Senate" That is what the Constitution says regardless of what is practiced This is not a "gotcha" moment, this is illustrative of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitutional authority of the Vice President, if you watch the Olberman piece you'll see where she repeatedly makes reference to the idea that the Constitution allows for more authority and action by the Vice President...which is DOES NOT. The VP's role in the Senate is two fold 1) hold the gavel 2) cast a tie-breaking vote that's what it means to preside over, so if she wants to be "in charge" the Robert's Rules of Order then have at it Palin, but that's not what she's talking about, she's talking about leading and changing legislation with a guiding hand and then saying the Constitution supports her claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Not a chance in hell this ever happens. You are missing the point that the VP doesn't actually get in there to craft policy. The party of the President will listen to what the President wants, but they don't let people from the executive branch (VP included) help write policies. I am not missing that point. I totally understand that concept I am saying that it actually would not be bad idea to have it happen President's and VP's constantly work with Congress before a bill is passed to craft legislation. Just look at the housing bailout bill. Or well any bill for that matter. The President lays out an agenda and priorities and works with the Congress to make it happen Often times, such as with the budget, there are long negotiations before a bill is passed and signed into law So having Ms Palin or Mr Biden work with the Senate in the legislative process is not an out of this world, OMG, moment to me. It is just common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 It is actually the ONLY job description the VP is given in the Constitution. And of course I am going to quote the Constitution on this. Where else am I supposed to find out what the duties of the VP are?Other then "President of the Senate" the VP has no other official duties as doled out by the Constitution. So again, I am not sure what your argument is Read the following and if you still don't get it, then there is no reason to continue the discussion Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 68, observed: The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. 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. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. The men who have served as Vice President have generally been less than enthusiastic about the the position. During his tenure as Vice President, John Adams remarked: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." Because the primary duty of the Vice President sit to wait in the wings in the even the sitting President dies, some have likened the Vice Presidency to a "perpetual death watch." Lyndon Johnson once said, "Every time I came into John Kennedy's presence, I felt like a raven hovering over his shoulder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 It is actually the ONLY job description the VP is given in the Constitution.Other then "President of the Senate" the VP has no other official duties as doled out by the Constitution. So again, I am not sure what your argument is Good luck with that. How about talk about the role of the VP in foreign policy? How about talk about supporting the presidents agenda? How about talk about what recent VPs have done? How about speak eloquently instead of this "you betcha" type of understanding? You want to believe in your butterflies and rainbows, feel free. You get to vote just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 It is actually the ONLY job description the VP is given in the Constitution. And of course I am going to quote the Constitution on this. Where else am I supposed to find out what the duties of the VP are?Other then "President of the Senate" the VP has no other official duties as doled out by the Constitution. So again, I am not sure what your argument is In some ways, it is a "Gotcha" question. But - to me - the bigger issue is that it's just another proof of Palin's lack of intellectual curiosity. Every answer she gives sounds like someone randomly saying stuff that they once heard somewhere. And she can usually get away with it, because she is, well, kind of adorable. To me, it just means that she has never actually thought about what she would do once she became the vice president. I don't know if she has ever met a vice president. (Maybe Cheney by now). I doubt she has ever read about a VP. (Biographies of Adams and Johnson would be a great starting point). She just remembers from high school civics that the VP is technically president of the senate. So, she rolls with that and tries to run out the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The VP's role in the Senate is two fold 1) hold the gavel 2) cast a tie-breaking vote that's what it means to preside over, so if she wants to be "in charge" the Robert's Rules of Order then have at it Palin, but that's not what she's talking about, she's talking about leading and changing legislation with a guiding hand and then saying the Constitution supports her claim. I disagree. I don't think she is talking about holding a guiding hand. More so she is talking about doing what every post WW2 administration in American history has done and that is work with the Congress to get a bill passed that the President will sign And again, with a large D majority, this may not be a bad idea, or nothing will be signed by a President McCain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate Until the 1960s, it was common practice for the Vice President to preside over daily Senate sessions, so the President pro tempore rarely presided over the Senate unless the Vice Presidency became vacant. But as the chamber's presiding officer in the absence of the Vice President, the President pro tempore is authorized to perform certain duties, including ruling on points of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Often times, such as with the budget, there are long negotiations before a bill is passed and signed into law This is never done by a VP or the President. In the same way that staffers of Congressmen write a lot of the language in bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 In some ways' date=' it is a "Gotcha" question.But - to me - the bigger issue is that it's just another proof of Palin's lack of intellectual curiosity. Every answer she gives sounds like someone randomly saying stuff that they once heard somewhere. And she can usually get away with it, because she is, well, kind of adorable.[/quote'] Agree To me' date=' it just means that she has never actually thought about what she would do once she became the vice president. I don't know if she has ever met a vice president. (Maybe Cheney by now). I doubt she has ever read about a VP. (Biographies of Adams and Johnson would be a great starting point).[/quote'] I am not sure anyone ever has except Dick Cheney. He knew what role he would go after once he was sworn in. Really, can you tell me what the VP does She just remembers from high school civics that the VP is technically president of the senate. So' date=' she rolls with that and tries to run out the clock.[/quote'] Not technically, according to the Constitution the VP IS President of the Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 This is never done by a VP or the President. In the same way that staffers of Congressmen write a lot of the language in bills. You don't remember Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole having late night sessions with Bill Clinton in the mid 1990s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Good luck with that. How about talk about the role of the VP in foreign policy? How about talk about supporting the presidents agenda? How about talk about what recent VPs have done? How about speak eloquently instead of this "you betcha" type of understanding? You want to believe in your butterflies and rainbows, feel free. You get to vote just like everyone else. Hey, I am not disagreeing with you there. My point this entire time is pointing out the Constitution says what the VP does. And that is preside over the Senate Anything else the VP does has just been added along the way by, well Dick Cheney, and maybe Al Gore. Harry Truman wasn't doing a damn thing as VP and didn't know of the Manhattan Project till FDR had passed. You think Dan Quayle did anything? To try and "get her' on this is rather stupid IMO when you can get her on a host of other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 It is actually the ONLY job description the VP is given in the Constitution. And of course I am going to quote the Constitution on this. Where else am I supposed to find out what the duties of the VP are?Other then "President of the Senate" the VP has no other official duties as doled out by the Constitution. So again, I am not sure what your argument is Look at the entire history of the United States and find where the Vice President is "in charge" of the Senate Majority leader. Preside over means hold the gavel and work Robert's Rules of Order, which is why the Vice President's role in the Senate is described as "largely ceremonial" you are simply suffering from the same malady that has infected Dick Cheney in that he unofficially adds more and more power to his office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 You don't remember Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole having late night sessions with Bill Clinton in the mid 1990s? Why weren't they meeting with Al Gore?? They weren't writing bills together. The Republicans would bring what they had on paper for a bill and it wasn't just the three of them in a room drafting legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I think its more disturbing that Joe Biden thinks that FDR was president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and spoke on televsion about the depression to the American People. That is kind of like 6th grade history..... oh well, he is a democrat and it doesnt matter. His Barackness and his 57 states thing was pretty bad too... but hell, it doesnt matter. Hail the mighty Obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Look at the entire history of the United States and find where the Vice President is "in charge" of the Senate Majority leader. Preside over means hold the gavel and work Robert's Rules of Order, which is why the Vice President's role in the Senate is described as "largely ceremonial" you are simply suffering from the same malady that has infected Dick Cheney in that he unofficially adds more and more power to his office. Not at all. I am just quoting the Constitution. You are adding words to my argument as you wish The Constitution says the VP is President of the Senate. And that is all it says about the VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 To try and "get her' on this is rather stupid IMO when you can get her on a host of other things The reason you think this is stupid is because you don't understand the role of the VP either. When you say that, well, mayeb it would be good for Palin to be in there working with the Dems, proves you don't understand what a VP does. Futhermore, if she had given a coherent answer on the actual role of the VP just once, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Why weren't they meeting with Al Gore?? They weren't writing bills together. The Republicans would bring what they had on paper for a bill and it wasn't just the three of them in a room drafting legislation Of course not. I am trying to simplify this thing for people who are running with one the silliest "gotcha" moments ever And knowing the VP Al Gore had a prominent role in the Clinton administration (in particular with foreign policy-read 'Ghost Wars' for a great Gore moment) I wouldn't be surprised if he was actively involved in budget negotiations. In particular the 1993 budget where he did cast the tie breaking vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The VP is "in charge" of the Senate. He/she is the President of the Senate. While the VP is not present that role is filled by the President Pro Tem. But, the role is administrative in nature as expressed in Article I section 3 of the Constitution: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The reason you think this is stupid is because you don't understand the role of the VP either. When you say that, well, mayeb it would be good for Palin to be in there working with the Dems, proves you don't understand what a VP does. Futhermore, if she had given a coherent answer on the actual role of the VP just once, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Not at all. The VP has one official duty in the Constitution and that is "President of the Senate" Please go through the Constitution and point to me what else the VP does before we continue any other discussion Do I think it is the best idea for her to work with Senators and telling them "hey, this may not be signed by the President" Maybe not. Do I think it is the worst idea in the world- not at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 About ....-7 to -8 pointsThe progressives that profess admiration for McCain would ultimately still prefer Obama and he would be w/o his base. Mock her all you want,ignore reality at your own peril:) Pre-Palin selection = McCain 44%, Obama 46% -August Post Palin selection = McCain 44%, Obama 52% -Today McCain was never at risk of losing the Republican base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.