Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Without the procedures.. the Senate doesnt run. = Large and in charge. Procedures has nothing to do with creating policy. She thinks she is going to be creating policy in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 No, the President is the leader of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.Okay. I'll concede that point. Its not worth arguing over.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. What does a President do? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Main Entry: pres·i·dent Pronunciation: 'pre-z&-d&nt, -"dent Function: noun 1 : an official chosen to preside over a meeting or assembly 2 : an appointed governor of a subordinate political unit 3 : the chief officer of an organization (as a corporation or institution) usually entrusted with the direction and administration of its policies 4 : the presiding officer of a governmental body President of the Senate —U.S. Constitution article I> According to this, he/she will "preside over a meeting or assembly". What does "preside" mean? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Main Entry: pre·side Pronunciation: pri-'zId Function: intransitive verb Inflected Forms: pre·sid·ed; pre·sid·ing 1 : to exercise guidance, direction, or control 2 : to occupy the place of authority : direct or regulate proceedings as chief officer Oh, he's the authority. That's different than being "in charge" I guess? Can't you see how ridiculous it is to get all up in arms over somebody saying the VP is "in charge" of the Senate? He/she is! But nobody in their right mind thinks a VP is going to go in there and go Darth Vader on the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Procedures has nothing to do with creating policy. She thinks she is going to be creating policy in the Senate. If she's there as part of the President's team negotiating acceptable policy w/ respect to the President and his power of veto and any power she controls w/ respect to controlling proceduere, isn't she in the Senate creating policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 zguy, you are impressive and I want to tell you that I am learning from your posts. So thanks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Procedures has nothing to do with creating policy. She thinks she is going to be creating policy in the Senate.I can see her being the liaison of sorts between the President and the Senate leaders.In a way, that can be seen as creating policy I guess, but not really. More like communicating policy. If she truly thinks that, she's a fool. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 A Travesty Upon Good Government As Dawes' term of office approached its end, a senator told him how much the members of the Senate thought of him, adding "but the Senate got very tired of you at the beginning of your service." Dawes replied, "I should hate to think that the Senate was as tired of me at the beginning of my service as I am of the Senate at the end." At about this time, Dawes attended the annual Gridiron Dinner. He and his successor, Charles Curtis, were ordered to stand while the "Dawes Decalogue, or the Letter of a Self-made Has-Been to His Successor" was read, listing several commandments drawn from "the depths of my experience": Don't steal the first page on Inauguration Day, and you may be invited to sit in the Cabinet. Don't be afraid to criticize the Senate. You know how much it needs it. The public likes it and the Senate thrives on it. . . . Don't try to change the Senate Rules. Don't buck the President if you want to stay more than four years. Don't do your sleeping in the day time. Ironically, Dawes spent his last days in the Senate watching another filibuster, napping on the couch in his office and responding when the quorum bells rang. When the Senate dispatched its sergeant at arms to "arrest" absent senators, Dawes considered listening to the profanity of the arrested senators as they were brought in "one of the few pleasant incidents of such proceedings." He noted with some dismay that the galleries were filled to watch the filibuster and grumbled that "a travesty upon good government in the Senate is regarded as an amusement rivaling a picture show." In his farewell speech to the Senate on March 4, 1929, Dawes reiterated his objections to the Senate rules, saying, "I take back nothing." You can be an ass if you want. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 You can be an ass if you want. IS that directed at me? and what was the point of your last post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I can see her being the liaison of sorts between the President and the Senate leaders.In a way, that can be seen as creating policy I guess, but not really. More like communicating policy. If she truly thinks that, she's a fool. :2cents: No VP has ever done this. Not even LBJ who knew the Senate better than any VP in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 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. How do you interpret what I say as giving the VP more power...if that's what you think they you couldn't be reading me more wrong. 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. If this is what you understand about what Cheney has done over the past 8 years then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 How do you interpret what I say as giving the VP more power...if that's what you think they you couldn't be reading me more wrong. You stated that what is Constitutional about the VPs office should be interperted based on the actions of previous VP. "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." So the way that Al Gore understood the VPs office somehow dictates the Constitutional limits of the powers of the VPs office? If this is what you understand about what Cheney has done over the past 8 years then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention. I'm going to need a link indicating that Cheney somehow used the power of his office w/ respect to presiding over the Senate in some novel or not normal way to influence Senate actions. Cheney has done some novel things as VP, but I think most of them where acting w/ in the executive branch, and then when it came to turn over his papers, he claimed he wasn't really part of the executive branch, but I don't think he's done anything abonormal w/ respect to presiding over the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The bimbo is a train wreck, send her back to the great white north and fuhgetaboutit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 IS that directed at me? and what was the point of your last post? It was directed at the Vice President giving the Senate such a hard time. not everything is about you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 No VP has ever done this. Not even LBJ who knew the Senate better than any VP in history. This statement is not true. The first couple of VP's knew it quite well and many took an active participation. Its the 20th Century VP's that backed off a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The bimbo is a train wreck, send her back to the great white north and fuhgetaboutit I'm shocked that the guy that currently makes 1 line hit and run statements about the current administration would post something as well thought out as the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 If she actually was bringing McCain down the media would NOT be all over her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 wow who cares...I cannot wait for this election to be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 ASF, the issue with Cheney exercising more power is directly related to W granting him authority and has no effect on his constitutionally invested responsibilities as president of the Senate. Could McCain grant Palin power over directing policy?...of course but it in no way changes the relationship between the Executive and Legislative branch. The VP(no matter who) cannot assume more powers,but can be granted them in a power sharing deal.(such as Cheney/W worked out) As far as his separate branch claim,while it has interesting sides;) it is really immaterial except when one branch tries to assert authority over another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.