Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorubet
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.
|
I disagree that what happened to Adams was a demonstration that the VP was not seen as a legislative role by the Founders. I would argue that Adams misinterpreted the legislative role of the position (as would Palin's description). That is why I focused more on Jefferon's rather than Adams' approach as Jefferson seems to have defined the legislative role (which he stated in his VP inaugural address was the most important role of the position according to the Constitution--see link I provided earlier) in a much more agreeable fashion to the Founders.
Out of curiosity as merely an intellectual exercise, what do you think would have happened if Adams had not backed down? With no Marbury v. Madison to justy the Court's involvement yet, how would the matter have been decided? Would the Court have asserted its judicial review power in this matter or would have someone/something else have to settle the disagreement?