So the word “preside” in the constitution has no legal effect?
The common use of the word implies the power to rule on evidence and objections. I believe the framers intended that the Chief Justice was to preside by issuing rulings on the admissibility of evidence and objections to questions.
But then the constitution has no meaning anymore.
Yes, he presides somewhat as a regular judge does during a trial, but certainly has less control over the parties. The primary difference is the ‘jury’ can over ride his rulings with 51 votes. It would be pointless to rule on admissibility of evidence, as the jury would have already made that call.