[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

I didn't realize I was crediting her or not crediting her with any philosophical depth to her response. I was just saying her response falls in line (whether intentional or not) with the practices of Adams. Whether Adams' appraoch is appropriate or not today is another question, but what I was trying to show is there is at least one, if not two, precedents that exist for a much more involved VP in Senate affairs and that such an interpretation is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution (i.e. it is a legislative, not an executive position).

My purpose for the post was more to counter what I thought I saw from some posters on here who naturally assumed that the VP is exclusively an executive position with only tie-breaking legislative authority. Although that may have been normal practice in modern times, it was not the original intent of the position; and therefore from a Constitutional perspective, it can easily be argued that it is a legislative position.

As for Adams and Jefferson being elected on there own, and current VPs not, I thought I addressed that.

Oh, my. Analogy of Palin to John Adams is making my brain overheat. Danger, Will Robinson!