Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyegrad
If you actually go back to the days of the Adams and Jefferson as presiding VPs over the Senate, and their contrasting approaches to it, you can actually find Cheney's approach represented and certain elements of Palin's comments. While Palin's comments represent more of an Adams approach of directly intervening, it should be noted that even Jefferson, who wished to avoid involving himself in Senate debates to the degree that Adams did, sought to strictly inform and enforce the parliamentary procedures of the Senate.
Jefferson's own views, which he thought were the Constitution's views, were that the primary role of the Vice President was as preciding officer of the Senate (i.e. the role was primarily legislative rather than executive). While he did not think the VP should become directly involved in the debates, he did believe the Constitution required the office to be responsible for keeping the rules and forms of the Senate. Part of his reasoning was that Jefferson wanted the minority to be protected in the Senate by its rules and proceeding--of course there may have been a political reason for Jefferson to do this as his Repubicans were out-numbered by the Federalists by an almost 2-1 margin.
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Thomas Jefferson, 2nd Vice President (1797-1801)
The idea that the VP is an executive and not a legislative position only developed later in history as the two-party system solidified and the President and Vice-President came to be viewed as a signle ticket. The original intent of the founders, and the views and behaviors of Adams and Jefferson suggest that the office was not meant to be seen as primarily a executive position. This perspective is still represented in those states in which the Lt. Governor runs on a separate ticket from the Governor and acts as presiding officer of the state senate. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincibuck
I'll gladly grant you that the role grows and shrinks over the various administrations, but Adams and Jefferson were elected on their own and only in Jefferson's case could one make the claim that party politics had arrived. Neither was ever guilty of preseting themselves as a member of both the administration and the legislative branch, a fact that frustrated Adams and led to his being politely informed to butt out. In Jefferson's case there was a clear split between his political goals and those of the administration of Adams.
But Palin has revealed that she has no idea what the job entails apart from some super sorter determining which is real and which is un-real America. To credit her with any sort of political philosophical depth would seem to me to be a rather large leap in faith.
|
In fact, Adams was threatened with a Senate Resolution banning his butt from interfereing in the wheeling and dealing of the Senate's legislative mission. In response he withdrew himself from that self appointed expanded role. This was pretty soon after the Founding, and the Senate was filled with Founding Fathers too. Therefore I can't agree that it was "only later" that the role of VP as a Legislative function was diminished - they stopped that pretty quick. Her explanation would be a watershed moment and expand the office even more than Cheney.
So the Veep certainly can cast a tie vote. And if they were bored enough he or she could serve as parlimentarian and give the poor President Pro Tempore a rest. Certainly they could certify the Electoral College Results. But to say that the Veep was
"in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes..." ?????
...not so much under any accepted interpretation of what the job entails over the last two hundred years.