Posted on 11/11/2024 7:14:23 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe
Mitch McConnell is pulling his usual shenanigans and trying to install one of his puppets as the incoming senate majority leader. That got me to thinking...
The Constitution does not provide for a "Senate majority leader," but it DOES declare that the Vice President is "president of the Senate." If McConnell gets his puppet installed, could Vice President Vance simply walk into the Senate and say "I'm assuming my duty as president of the Senate," and just shut out the majority leader? Has there been any historical precedent for a V.P. doing something like this?
If obstructionist Republicans intend to stymie Trump's nominations and appointments, this would be a totally boss move. And Vance has the stones to pull it off.
Don’t make Schumer some kind of hero.
Why are there only 3 choices? (Rick Scott is the only choice of the 3 IMO)
Why is the ballot SECRET?!
Thought they were supposed to work for the people?
That's not the case today.
And the Majority leader is a super active position...so Vance is gonna attend all the Senate meetings, bring the votes to the floor...and tell Trump he's too busy to talk to him this week.
The Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid but there would be a “separation of powers” issue between the executive and legislative branches. You would have an executive branch official (the VP!) acting as an “officer” in the legislative branch.
It would be a stupid thing to do to Vance if it was tried. It would very likely derail him politically from Prez consideration. The Senate Majority leader is heavily involved in fundraising, the allocation of those funds & the politics of the Senate. This will involve “compromises” to get things done many which will be disliked by people FR. Look how McConnell is hated here sometimes reasonably so sometimes not reasonably so. LBJ like majorities were not delivered in the House and the Senate by the election we just had. We may only have the House by the “skin of our teeth” if we have it at all. If we had LBJ style majorities we could bludgeon our way through we don’t so we can’t! It will require that dirty word “politics” to get anything done. Putting Vance in there to do that will tarnish him for 2028. Let a GOP Senate politico do the “dirty” but necessary political wheeling and dealing let the mud splash on him\her. That’s why they are there!
\/
i see all the USUAL suspects are naysaying
that alone gives me hope
if its flak
we must be directly above target
/-)
Roe v Wade was precedence...poof...
The Constitution names the VP as the president of the Senate. It also clearly states that the Senate has the power to make its own rules regarding its proceedings. The Senate therefore cannot make Vance vacate the office of President of the Senate. What it can do, however, (and probably already has) is make rules that render the VPs role as presiding officer essentially a ceremonial one without real power. It’s likely that the rules already are written as such that the VP cannot overrule the SML.
Those senate dogs are all just piss marking the corner post.
You are correct. Vance needs to be front page in a positive light as much as possible.
Some reports indicate that Martin Van Buren, who served as vice president and presided over the Senate before becoming president himself in 1837, wore a “brace of pistols” for his personal protection while directing Senate business.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/04/presidential-firearms-part-iii
Rules don’t overrule the Constitution.
“In days gone by...the VP was there only to replace the President.”
No, until 70 years ago, the VP was primarily a legislative position.
That said, as President of the Senate I can see the Vice President enforcing the parliamentary process rigorously, using Robert's Rules of Order and the Senate rules to control who can speak and for how long instead of having a member do it. He can rule on what is in and out of order, deny points of order or motions, etc.
The minority might make an appeal to the parliamentarian to overturn decisions (the so-called nuclear option), but I would love to see the Vice President declare that the nuclear option doesn't apply to him as he is in the Constitutionally defined position of President of the Senate and the parliamentarian is an inferior role created by Congressional rules.
-PJ
You can't be serious. You think the Constitution gets down into minutia like who the Senate majority leader is?
“The Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid but there would be a “separation of powers” issue between the executive and legislative branches. You would have an executive branch official (the VP!) acting as an “officer” in the legislative branch.”
Incorrect.
The VP is Constitutionally the President of the Senate.
To quote the Senate website “The vice presidency shifted dramatically in the middle of the 20th century from being mainly a legislative position to a predominately executive branch post” and “prior to the 20th century vice presidents rarely attended cabinet meetings or otherwise involved themselves in executive branch business.”
https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/overview.htm
If you say so.
Having Vance do that will be a huge mistake.
I didn’t say it wasn’t unwise.
But it is not a separation of powers issue as you claimed.
To the contrary, the current tradition is relatively new and does not follow the Constitution.
Ok
Glad you admit you were completely wrong when you said “the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid but there would be a “separation of powers” issue between the executive and legislative branches. You would have an executive branch official (the VP!) acting as an “officer” in the legislative branch.”
Given the Constitution says the exact opposite and many VPs did the exact opposite until Calvin Coolridge.
WHAT? The Senate works less than 4 days a week !
I think you’re pulling my leg!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.