Ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (Official)

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by cincibuck

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.

I'm curious as to what you think an appropiate response would be?

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by cincibuck

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.

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.

[kinch]

Originally Posted by bigballin2987

I'm curious as to what you think an appropiate response would be?

This is what I think is damning the McCain campaign. When Bush made comments that were ill conceived or misrepresentative of reality, the Democrats needed to respond, and the media in its current state created a he said/she said or two sides to every issue discussion of the matter.

But the populace didn't know better when Bush spoke.

They know better than Palin. The populace knows when her comments are asinine. This is what is sinking McCain's ship.

In short: no response is necessary.

[cincibuck]

I certainly expect a vice presidential candidate to be able to answer the question of what a vice president does. "To support the policies of my president," would be a good starting point. To be a spokesman for the adminisration, to help organize support among our party members, would be even better and present the public with the image of someone who at least had read her civics book, but the job does not include being one who initiates legislation, takes part in committee work and votes regularly on senate business.

[Gatorubet]

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.

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.

[DaytonBuck]

Teddy Roosevelt got a JD as VP

[Gatorubet]

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

Forgive me, but I think you know ten times more about the job and its history than Palin does after a month working to get elected to it.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

Teddy Roosevelt got a JD as VP

Fairbanks was a lawyer?

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Fairbanks was a lawyer?

This was when he was playing number 2 to Ohio's finest McKinley. Apparently he had a lot of free time.

[buckeyegrad]

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?

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

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 inagural address that it was the position most important role 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's have asserted its judicial review power earlier in this matter or would have someone else had to settle the disagreement?

Hell of a question Grad. With no Marbury v Madison and no Supreme Court precedent that allowed them to even decide the issue, the role could have been defined by resolution or legislation each term, or more likely they might have tried to Amend the role by defining it.

One thing that is fascinating is the difficult task of devining the intest of the Framers. One big reason is they did not agree what it meant when they approved it. Deals were brokered and sides were told that language meant one thing and the other side told it meant something else.

Certainly Jeff knew what HE thought it meant, or even intended it to mean. Some of the members of the Constitutional Convention refused to sign it as they disagreed with parts of it. Others signed it but had different views about what the language meant.

Here are Madison's notes about the debate on the language that made the Veep the President of the Senate.

Section 3. (see Sepr. 4). "The vice President shall be ex-officio President of the Senate"

Mr. GERRY opposed this regulation. We might as well put the President himself at the head of the Legislature. The close intimacy that must subsist between the President & vice-president makes it absolutely improper. He was agst. having any vice President.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. The vice president then will be the first heir apparent that ever loved his father. If there should be no vice president, the President of the Senate would be temporary successor, which would amount to the same thing.

Mr. SHERMAN saw no danger in the case. If the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member by being made President must be deprived of his vote, unless when an equal division of votes might happen in the Senate, which would be but seldom.

Mr. RANDOLPH concurred in the opposition to the clause.

Mr. WILLIAMSON, observed that such an officer as vice-President was
not wanted. He was introduced only for the sake of a valuable mode of election which required two to be chosen at the same time.

Col: MASON, thought the office of vice-President an encroachment on the rights of the Senate; and that it mixed too much the Legislative & Executive, which as well as the Judiciarydepartments, [FN7] ought to be kept as separate as possible. He took occasion to express his dislike of any reference whatever of the power to make appointments to either branch of the Legislature. On the other hand he was averse to vest so dangerous a power in the President alone. As a method for avoiding both, he suggested that a privy Council of six members to the president should be established; to be chosen for six years by the Senate, two out of the Eastern two out of the middle, and two out of the Southern quarters of the Union, & to go out in rotation two every second year; the concurrence of the Senate to be required only in the appointment of Ambassadors, and in making treaties, which are more of a legislative nature. This would prevent the constant sitting of the Senate which he thought dangerous, as well as keep the departments separate & distinct. It would also save the expence of constant sessions of the Senate. He had he said always considered the Senate as too unwieldy & expensive for appointing officers, especially the smallest, such as tide waiters &c. He had not reduced his idea to writing, but it could be easily done if it should be found acceptable.

On the question shall the vice President be ex officio President of the Senate?
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del ay. Mas no. Va. ay. N. C. abst. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

[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!

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

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?

By the time Jefferson became Adams' Veep the two had become embroiled in the Federalist argument and the issue of a possible war. Adams was seen by Jefferson as wanting a stronger central govt, and a war with France, positions he oppossed. Adams maintained that he had no intentions of a war with France and was a not a member of the Federalist camp. It's hard to imagine how a government could long last if the President and the VP were at such odds. Given the way the veep was decided then, the rise of the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans, and the lack of precedents, legal, political and historical, I think you're reaching to draw a comparison to the modern Veep situation and thus justify Palin's comments on the office. Frankly, nothing she's said gives any indication that she could make an argument as deep as the one you've presented. wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean.

[CCI]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

New Palin Interview.

When asked by a third grader what the Veep does, , she replies that the Vice President is "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 that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom..."

Only problem is, the Veep isn't really in charge of the Senate, doggoneit.. I don't think "when the senate is tied 50-50, the VP break the tie with a vote. Other than that, they open bridges" is too hard to say.

I don't think that it is nit picking when she invents a job that does not exist in the Constitution. But it is a good companion to her other interview where she asks what the VP does?

But cha know, she's been busy meetin' and greetin' all of you real Americans in those small towns gosh darn it!

YouTube - Sarah Palin: VP Is 'In Charge Of United States Senate'

What an Idiot, she doesn't even know the constitution. OMG talk about insert foot in mouth. BTW can I get 150,000 in a clothing allowance?

[CCI]

Originally Posted by mooktarr

I intend to vote for McCain and Mrs. Palin as I have no longer any trust in the Democrats. There is a lot of trash and negative talking in here along with hate.
Some of you are helping to give liberals a black eye.

research your canadates bro, maybe you live close to Joe Da plumber and you make over $250,000 a year.