Palin: "VP in charge of the Senate"

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is the President of the United States "in charge" of the Executive branch?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

Article. II. - The Executive Branch

Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[BigMike619]

oh noz, mccain is running a dirty campaign and we should all talk badly about him for it. yet we should all also sit back and talk about how we wish palin would do playboy, the porn that is being made and basically call her nothing but a good looking woman.

how very hypocritical...

[PeterMP]

Her answer with this reporter is reflective of the chorus of answers that she has given about the Vice Presidency in that she misunderstands the role of the VP. Sure the VP is on the President's team so how can the VP be "in charge" of the Senate knowing that we have a separation of powers. Sorry, PeterMP but you can't have both.

The VP, as directed by the Constitution, presides over the Senate, for normal political discourse (especially to a 3rd grader) in charge of is a reasonable subsitution.

I think, what in fact changed, that wasn't fully taken into account is the idea that the VP is on the Presidents team. Remember, originally, the VP was not selected by the President and didn't run w/ the President, but was frequently and advisary to the President.

Maybe when we changed how the VP is selected we should have changed his role w/ respect to the Senate, but we didn't so we know have a position where the person is TIGHTLY linked to the President, but has a Constitutional role w/ respect to the Senate. The fact that you don't like and think it threatens separation of powers doen't make it not so. If you don't like it, push for a Constitutional ammendment to modify or clarrify the role of the VP w/ respect to presiding over the Senate.

If this answer is reflective of the "chorus of answers", please give another answer that suggest she will try and "grab" power by controlling the Senate.

[Zguy28]

pointless use of database storage

Way to dodge the question.

I asked if he is "in charge" of the executive branch?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is the President of the United States "in charge" of the Executive branch?

To answer your question more directly, the Constitution vests the power of the Executive Branch into the Presidency. It does not do the same thing with the Vice Presidency over the Senate. You're playing a symantic game that is simply broken because the President "in charge" of the Executive Branch is not the same as the VP presiding over the Senate, BIG difference.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Way to dodge the question.

I asked if he is "in charge" of the executive branch?

Shameful of me to quote the Constitution. Just disgusting of me. Again, you're playing symantics in an attempt to excuse Palin from her misunderstanding of the Constitutional allowances for the office of the Vice President.

[PeterMP]

No not I, the VP presides over the Robert's Rules of Order in the Senate, the VP is not "in charge" of the Senate.

Almost every position of authority has limits based on rules. The VP can preside over the Senate in the context of the rules in place.

Yeah, because the SCOTUS has nothing better to do than stop Presidential and Vice Presidential power grabs.

You mean they have something better to than their job?

[Zguy28]

I think, what in fact changed, that wasn't fully taken into account is the idea that the VP is on the Presidents team. Remember, originally, the VP was not selected by the President and didn't run w/ the President, but was frequently and advisary to the President.

Maybe when we changed how the VP is selected we should have changed his role w/ respect to the Senate, but we didn't so we know have a position where the person is TIGHTLY linked to the President, but has a Constitutional role w/ respect to the Senate. The fact that you don't like and think it threatens separation of powers doen't make it not so. If you don't like it, push for a Constitutional ammendment to modify or clarrify the role of the VP w/ respect to presiding over the Senate.

Good point. Originally the VP was the runner up in the Prez election. So it kind of balanced the power.

[Zguy28]

Shameful of me to quote the Constitution. Just disgusting of me. Again, you're playing symantics in an attempt to excuse Palin from her misunderstanding of the Constitutional allowances for the office of the Vice President.

No, I'm trying to get a simple, honest answer from you.

Is that too much to ask from a Pastor?

[PeterMP]

Good point. Originally the VP was the runner up in the Prez election. So it kind of balanced the power.

My post should in fact say adversary to the President.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, I'm trying to get a simple, honest answer from you.

Is that too much to ask from a Pastor?

Bottom of page 7. BTW, the last line of your post...unnecessary, it implies that pastor's have to tell the truth more than others.

[Thiebear]

Quote:

HERSH is correct: HE is the only one that knows what the VP does since 1820. And is going to list IF ANY VP has sat in the Senate during that timeframe trying to do what Palin has advocated.

Just to prove us all wrong.

Tell me how I am wrong??

You said WE are all wrong, it is upon you to post how many VP's have sat in the Senate to show us the error or our ways.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You mean they have something better to than their job?

Maybe the Legislative and Executive Branches could actually behave themselves and stop trying to grab more power than afforded to them via the Constitution, how refreshing would that be.

[AsburySkinsFan]

My post should in fact say adversary to the President.

So if the VP was originally an adversary of the President, exactly how much power and authority do you think the VP was given by the President? This is why the office of the VP is intentionally weak, not strong. They were marginalized not given more power.

[Hersh]

If this answer is reflective of the "chorus of answers", please give another answer that suggest she will try and "grab" power by controlling the Senate.

Explain what exactly she means here:

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

[PeterMP]

Maybe the Legislative and Executive Branches could actually behave themselves and stop trying to grab more power than afforded to them via the Constitution, how refreshing would that be.

Afforded to them based on whose interpertation of the Constitution?

[Thiebear]

For those with a LACK of knowledge that are dogging my woman.

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.

The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. 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.

[Zguy28]

To answer your question more directly, the Constitution vests the power of the Executive Branch into the Presidency. It does not do the same thing with the Vice Presidency over the Senate. You're playing a symantic game that is simply broken because the President "in charge" of the Executive Branch is not the same as the VP presiding over the Senate, BIG difference.

Thank you.

I'm not playing semantics. I'm making a point. You are the one playing semantics with this whole issue and what she said. The President of the United States is "in charge" of the United States. He is the leader of the people.

In the same way, the VP is President of the Senate. He is "in charge" of the Senate. He leads them. He does not vote except in a tie. He cannot pass legislation. He cannot order Senators to vote one way or the other, he maintains stability and order. Similar to a Moderator in a business meeting.

Its really pretty clear ASF that you will do just about anything and go to any length to achieve victory for Obama.

I say that as a friend, not an enemy. I have no stake in feud between campaigns other than to try to see it remain balanced here in the Tailgate.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Afforded to them based on whose interpertation of the Constitution?

Wow, you really do want to give lots of power to the VP don't you? Maybe we could look at the way 42 other VP's have interpreted the Constitution, maybe the way they understood it should have some bearing on the way it is understood today.

I think its hillarious that people who hate judges who legislate from the bench and yet defend the Cheney's/Palin's liberal interpretation of "preside over the Senate". It borderlines on commical.

[Thiebear]

I think its hillarious that people who hate judges who legislate from the bench and yet defend the Cheney's/Palin's liberal interpretation of "preside over the Senate". It borderlines on commical.

Look up 2 posts... its already a rule.

[PeterMP]

Explain what exactly she means here:

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

I have no idea. I can't believed how poorly she appears to have been prepared to answer that question.

I will however note that Cheney's claim was not based on or related to anything w/ respect to trying to influence the Senate in a manner that was novel or even different from other recent VPs.

I haven't seen anywhere that somebody opinioned Cheney's claim that he is not really part of the executive branch threatens separation of powers or would result in the VP's office having extra or undue influence over the Senate as seems to be the arguement of the OP so de facto that she agrees with Cheney doesn't make the OP correct.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not playing semantics. I'm making a point. You are the one playing semantics with this whole issue and what she said. The President of the United States is "in charge" of the United States. He is the leader of the people.

No, the President is the leader of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

In the same way, the VP is President of the Senate. He is "in charge" of the Senate. He leads them. He does not vote except in a tie.

Wow, where do you find any of this in the Constitution? The VP is the leader of the Senate in the same way that the President is the leader of the people?! OMG this is just as liberal of an interpretation of the VPship as Cheney and Palin are making, and it is historically inaccurate.

Its really pretty clear ASF that you will do just about anything and go to any length to achieve victory for Obama.

I say that as a friend, not an enemy. I have no stake in feud between campaigns other than to try to see it remain balanced here in the Tailgate.

This is completely irrelevant to the discusion.

[Hersh]

For those with a LACK of knowledge that are dogging my woman.

Thank you for making the case for those of use that realize Palin doesn't know what the VP does.

As you quoted: 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.

The key being: judge of proper procedure

That's a lot different then what she 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

Thanks again for making our case for us.

[Thiebear]

Thank you for making the case for those of use that realize Palin doesn't know what the VP does.

As you quoted: 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.

The key being: judge of proper procedure

That's a lot different then what she 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

Thanks again for making our case for us.

Without the procedures.. the Senate doesnt run. = Large and in charge.

[PeterMP]

Wow, you really do want to give lots of power to the VP don't you? Maybe we could look at the way 42 other VP's have interpreted the Constitution, maybe the way they understood it should have some bearing on the way it is understood today.

I think its hillarious that people who hate judges who legislate from the bench and yet defend the Cheney's/Palin's liberal interpretation of "preside over the Senate". It borderlines on commical.

I don't want to give any power to the VP. I'd happily vote for a measure to strip the VP of their preside over the Senate role. From your post, it appears that you actually want to give power to VPs. I'd take it as you are arguing that VPs should have a role in interperting the Constitution based on the precedence of their actions.

Linking Cheney's idea of the VP to this is completely inaccurate. To my knowledge, Cheney didn't do anything w/ respect to "presiding over" or "being in charge" of the Senate than anyother recent VP.

Cheney's made some novel claims about the VP's office, but they are essentially completely removed from anything dealing with the power of the VP w/ respect to the Senate.