Vanceas should be Vance

X ^ | 11/08/24 | Charlie Kirk & Glen Beck

[Enlightened1]

Charlie Kirk tells me, “John Adams presided over the US Senate as Senate Majority Leader 200 years ago as Vice President of the United States. I think JD Vance should be President of the Senate and become Senate Majority Leader?

 

Senator Mike Lee came up with this. This is a 1AM phone call from him last night and he had me at ‘hello.’ This would COMPLETELY change the game in Washington.”

 

 

(3 minute Video in the link below)

 

https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1854988977989992472

 

 

[Bookshelf]

Aaron Burr was the first Vice President to preside over the Senate and did a first rate job of it.

[Right_Wing_Madman]

Aaron Burr was the first Vice President to preside over the Senate and did a first rate job of it.

I guess you weren't a big fan of Alexander Hamilton?

[Diogenesis]

will Schumer and McConnell be tried in China or GITMO?

most Americans want the latter.

[no-to-illegals]

One can be assured the long knives are out for President Trump’s second term. Pray for President Trump, please, that God will protect this American Hero. Senate races and House races are being stolen by democrats and democrat operatives, as is democrats SOP. Because President Trump is NOT DC, democrats and republicans will work against the “will of the People” to harm not only President Trump but to harm all Americans. DC hates America and all Americans. We will know DC by their actions. DC and most media operations and operatives will speak with forked tongues. May God protect and keep America safe. My advice is buckle up and praise God, as each snaps our buckle, kamala was defeated.

[SaveFerris]

I was one of The Van Buren Boys, if that counts.

Frog is wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0MtSBKgUNk

(of course Seinfeld picked a Democrat)

[9YearLurker]

A real test of how popular Vance is with his fellow GOP Senators.

[Ann Archy]

YES!!! JD ALL THE WAY!! NEVER THUNE or CORNYN!!

[wiseprince]

THUNE or CORNYN is the GOPe completely missing the moment. Completely! You need an economic populous strain in leadership as well as someone who understands how to talk to the working class. Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley would be directionally the right answer. I think Marco Rubio would be a good bridge. Maybe the leadership roll requires different skill sets as well that these guys do not have, that I don’t know but the direction they are heading in is nuts. They are not really going to benefit as a party or be able to benefit from the Trump coalition with current leadership, that’s for sure.

[Envisioning]

This election was a mandate. It’s time to shake up Washington. The people have spoken, we are in charge. It is our Senate, NOT China’s!

[38special]

Heck, we’re trying to primary Cornball Cornyn here in Texas

[metmom]

Well, we can be assured that God has plans, however the Senate and House fall out.

He kept Trump alive and caused him to win by a decisive margin in both the popular and electoral college. A margin that put the election beyond dispute.

Whether the House and Senate fall out the way we’d like, and I am certainly praying that it does so, God has it in control and it will work according to HIS plan.

He is still on the throne and the left cannot vote Him out of office.

[paltz]

While John Adams did preside over the Senate as Vice President, he did not serve as Senate Majority Leader. The position of Senate Majority Leader as we know it today did not exist during his time. When John Adams was Vice President from 1789 to 1797, the role of the Vice President in the Senate was strictly as the presiding officer, a role defined by the Constitution.

Adams oversaw Senate proceedings and could cast a vote only to break ties, but he did not have the authority to set the legislative agenda or lead a party's efforts.

In fact, formal party structures and the roles of Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate did not come about until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[RummyChick]

No to Hawley. Anyway, he caved and is backing one of the two rino misfits.

[03A3]

Heck, we’re trying to primary Cornball Cornyn here in Texas

He has said he isnt running again. Paxton has said he will make sure of it.

[weezel]

I like it!!

It has been prior to now, the main thing a VP did was to be certain to wear the right suit to foreign dignitaries funerals. I think Vance could handle both jobs very well.

[avital2]

i wonder about further blurring of Separation of Powers.

[Phlyer]

but he did not have the authority to set the legislative agenda

Where does that authority come from? Who gave it to the Majority Leader? How does it operate?

The reason I ask those question is because it's not clear that the President of the Senate does *not* have the power to set the agenda (pardon the double negative, but there's a reason).

It's hard to prove a negative. Saying that the President of the Senate does not have the power to do something implies that there is some hard and fast reason, but I don't see it.

The reason the VP (actual President of the Senate) has little power in that position stems from the way the Constitution originally established the selection of the Vice President. It was the losing opponent of the winning President. And so the party of the President had a large incentive to neuter the office of the President of the Senate.

But if the Vice President really took that office, then he would absolutely control the agenda since he would be the one to recognize who would be allowed to speak. If he wanted them to work on, say, an authorization bill for Defense, then he would only recognize those who were going to talk on that topic. No other business could proceed until that topic was covered to his satisfaction (including, if need be, voting on the bill). Of course, in the real world of politics he would not make that the topic until his party was ready to discuss it, but he has the power.

I have thought for some time that the VP should truly preside over the Senate. As always, however, one needs to ask the question of what would happen if 'our' party (whichever side that is) had a majority in the Senate while the other party had the office of the President. That's a real issue, but the follow on question is would that be any worse that what we have with a back-room dealer making all the decisions - and usually to support his own agenda, not that of the President.

[Clutch Martin]

“In fact, formal party structures and the roles of Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate did not come about until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”

Let us hearken and return to the ante-buffoonery era. Wouldn’t it be Constitutionally correct to do so? Strip down the years of finagling and workarounds to a rawboned litmus Constitutional Republic, and allow common sense to dictate the boundries.

[Eli Kopter]

YES! I like this too! More Democrat heads exploding for sure.