The Vice President is the President of the Senate. If Mitch retains power...

[joshcryer]

...Harris should take her constitutional duty and preside over the Senate for all legislative sessions for two years and determine the order of business on a regular basis. Force them to take votes that they're too afraid to take.

The US constitution does not mention political parties, and for obvious reasons. Political parties come and go. The Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Whigs, or the Know-Nothings have had their time and since faded into oblivion. Parties are elements of a system larger than the sum of its parts; they are temporary by nature.

As such, the roles of Senate Majority and Minority Leaders have no constitutional recognition either. They exist as a matter of fact, and their power (particularly those of the Majority Leader) as a matter of tradition. Herein lies the catch, and an opportunity for the Biden administration.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the US Constitution states that:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Wikipedia informs us that most of the time, the Vice-President being busy with other state duties,

The Senate chooses a president pro tempore to preside in the vice president’s absence. Modern presidents pro tempore, too, rarely preside over the Senate. In practice, the junior senators of the majority party typically preside in order to learn Senate procedure.

But the Vice-President can, of course, decide to take up his Senate duty and preside whenever so she chooses.

https://blog.usejournal.com/mitch-mcconnell-an-emperor-without-clothes-c0096ac51e36

Mitch's obstruction and activities need to be reined in. He has blown all tradition out of the window, he has destroyed any semblance of the democratic institution. Pro forma sessions to stop appointments, infinite virtual filibuster. The Senate is no longer a functional arm of the government.

This would bolster us for 2022 when we can show their senators voting down legislation that helps the American people.

Note: I am still holding out hope for the GA runoffs, but this is what we need to do should we fail. GA is only recently, and by a very small margin, a blue state. All options should be on the table. It's time to fight fire with fire.

[joshcryer]

7. Fixed.

Thanks!

[lastlib]

9. thank you!

[rso]

2. Senate

Unfortunately, only republicans would make such a move, we democrats are much too proper and correct to do this.

[Duppers]

14. 2 words...

Kamala Harris. She one tough lady who breaks glass ceilings.

[mr_lebowski]

3. So what is gained by her being there and presiding?

Seems like other VP's would have taken this privilege up if it could confer advantage when the Senate was ruled by the opposing party.

Or have they and I just wasn't aware?

[joshcryer]

6. As the link shows, she'd give priority to a Democrat.

Who would then run the Senate how he/she so decided.

They would likely call a vote to squash it, and change the direction of things, but that would require them to actually be there, and, you know, actually vote. Do this every day the Senate is in session for two years. See how utterly ridiculous they look.

[SheltieLover]

91. Excellent! 👏👏👏👏

I love this!

Did you email to Joe's team?

[Generic Brad]

69. That would force Republicans to finally have a voting record

All they've been doing is bloviating and ramming through judges. They never have to take an actual stand.

This chips away at their power and puts more in the hands of the voters who will better know where they really stand.

[cstanleytech]

75. True and if wielded correctly it could put the Republicans in a tight spot.

For example imagine a simple proposal put up for vote that says
Do you support stripping Americans of their health coverage?
A yes or no vote will screw them as would an attempt to abstain because lets face it they only care about opposing Obamacare as its a useful tool for them to rally their base of morons around.

[Sherman A1]

4. How does this play into the rules of the senate

as each House is granted the authority to make it's own rules?

[joshcryer]

5. As the link shows Majority/Minority are not in the Senate rules.

It's literally decorum.

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Interesting. So the VP could in essence schedule a Senate Recess for Recess Appointments?

[joshcryer]

10. The main power the VP has is giving priority to a Senator.

Senators are all on equal standing theoretically, they just give priority to the majority leader as per tradition. By giving priority to another senator they will have the Republicans, on record, voting down a Senator's proposals.

The thing that Mitch has been doing for years and years is not permitting anything to even be discussed much less voted on.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. But doesn't Schumer, for example, have some limited ability to bring up a vote?

this was floated a few times, about a month ago there was an article that he was going to bring something up for a vote.

And it was always hypothetical that he could do that if no GOP Senator were on the floor.

But by this logic, VP Biden could have grabbed the gavel in 2016 and at least allowed a vote on SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland. Didn't happen of course.

[joshcryer]

24. Cloture requires 60 votes, and the GOP is hardline.

They just use the virtual filibuster endlessly, which requires 60 votes to break.

We need to get rid of the filibuster, while we're at it, but that won't happen unless we get a 50-50 split or better so we can change the Senate rules.

[marble falls]

88. The virtual filibuster is what needs to be gotten rid of.

[bottomofthehill]

73. Both the house and senate need to agree to be in Recess

The house has been holding pro forma sessions, at least 2 a week when the house is not doing regular business to ensure that Trump can not recess appoint people.

[unblock]

11. the senate has rules and the powers of the person presiding aren't all that great

there's zero constitutional basis for a senate president to suddenly declare themselves dictator of the senate.

without a majority, we still wouldn't be able to pass anything or confirm anyone.

yes, when the senate is in full session, if harris is presiding, she could use some of the limited powers of presiding over the session to recognize democrats more, cut off republicans more, etc. but that's about it.

[ToxMarz]

22. It mentions she could determine the order of business

So I imagine if there is a Supreme Court opening for example, Moscow Mitch couldn't just refuse to have hearings or votes. Maybe?

[unblock]

23. Generally the senate rules committee does that

Harris could force a complete vote rather than having something pass by unanimous consent or voice vote, and show can control the flow of debate.

But I don't think she could force a vote on something that never got out of committee.

But even if she could, republicans could very easily call it a stunt and just vote party line.

It's probably worth her doing some of this, but I think these are minor political points we'd get, nothing major here.

[joshcryer]

25. Of course, but this is for 2022, put them on the spot voting down stuff.

Show CSPAN footage of them voting down stuff, and complaining about Harris taking over her constitutional right to determine the order of business. It would cause them to raise hell of course. But when the actual legislation got voted down you'd have attack ads saying things like "Senators voted against 2.5 trillion on COVID relief!"

Obviously I wouldn't want her residing over naming post offices or anything like that. But I do think she should throw a wrench into things. We need to stop playing by their rules which they made up. Their conventions which they break. Their authoritarianism that they continue to grip.

[unblock]

33. Well I certainly agree that we should be playing constitutional hardball

They are playing it already and we need to step up our game.

[joshcryer]

38. Plus, it would make them pull their hair out.

Seeing Harris take to the Senate for 10 minutes to give priority to Schumer so he can run the proceedings for the day, followed by electing a temp President, as she leaves, smiling real big, and walks out.

Imagine.

[safeinOhio]

12. Loop Hole. Here you go.

https://music.

&list=RDAMVMfgBfdY_HN3A

[bucolic_frolic]

13. So if the VP and minority party match, they have more say - bringing up legislation, votes

If that's the way it works, run with it.

[onenote]

19. See post 17 -- it won't work.

[world wide wally]

16. Impeach McConnell too!

His whole ballgame is obstruction, obstruction, obstruction and he brags about it. Talk about a "do nothing" senate. He is ignoring his actual duties and simply playing to power.

[onenote]

18. Senators can't be impeached.

[world wide wally]

20. Then lock him up.

[onenote]

21. For what?

Keep in mind that the Constitution states that Senators and Representatives "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

[wnylib]

50. But they can be charged and prosecuted

for criminal acts. What are the chances that the turtle has committed prosecutable crimes?

[onenote]

70. That's the question -- what crimes do you think he can be charged with

Keeping in mind the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.

[wnylib]

71. I'm not a lawyer or investigator,

so I couldn't name a charge. I wasn't even thinking of anything he might have said. But I think finances might be a good place to start looking.

I'd suggest that there must be something because it looks like Trump or Putin has a hold on him, but he was being a jerk before Trump.

Another place to look might be elections and how he uses his political power in Kentucky.

[fwvinson]

85. They could dig deep on the money exchanges between Mitch and China and/or Russia, and/or SA, Turkey,

maybe a few others.

[questionseverything]

76. Trump is committing treason,human rights abuses and allowing deaths by ignoring the pandemic

McConnell has aided him in every one of those felonies

Plus I thought I remembered an insider trading thing with his wife

There has been so much investigative journalism that hasn’t been followed through by justice department I bet there are charges for more than one senator

[PoliticAverse]

68. Whether a Senator can be impeached or not is sort of an unsettled question...

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/expulsion_cases/Blount_expulsion.htm

Despite Blount's absence, his impeachment trial began in the Senate on December 17, 1798, and quickly focused on the Senate's right to try an expelled senator. In a narrow vote, the Senate defeated a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer. In this vote, the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a "civil office" also ceased to be impeachable.

[onenote]

74. After 222 years, there is no chance the House will try to impeach a Senator.

If a Senator can be impeached then so too can a member of the House. Yet the Constitution specifies that a member of the House can be expelled only by a 2/3 vote of the House. Allowing the House to "impeach" one of its members by simple majority vote and then have the Senate remove the member goes against the logical understanding of the Constitution.

Pelosi would never try to impeach a Senator so it's a silly suggestion.

[PoliticAverse]

89. Yeah really, zero chance of any Congress person being impeached presently. n/t

[onenote]

17. Isn't going to happen and wouldn't work anyway.

Harris is not going to limit her role to sitting around the Capitol to preside whenever the Senate is in session.

And to the extent she chooses to abandon the tradition of giving the majority leader priority when it comes to recognizing a Senator to be heard, it will be simple for the Republicans, if they're in the majority, to change the rules of the Senate to require the presiding officer to give priority to the majority leader.

This could be done if she's not present by having McConnell raise a point of order suggesting that, notwithstanding the rule that says the presiding officer must recognize the first person to seek recognition, the majority leader gets priority. The friendly presiding officer denies the point of order and McConnell appeals the ruling and it merely takes a majority vote to overrule the presiding officer and change the rule (i.e., the "nuclear option&quot .

Indeed, even if Harris was in the chair, the same scenario could and would play out. McConnell would raise a point of order, Harris would deny it, and a majority of the senate would overrule her.

So this idea is a non-starter.

[TheRickles]

26. But she couldn't be overruled by a majority of the Senate if the Senate was 50-50.

[onenote]

28. If the Senate is 50-50, a Democrat will end up as Majority Leader

And the OP becomes moot.

[joshcryer]

29. You don't need this if it's 50-50 because Dems would have the majority.

[joshcryer]

27. They could change the rules but it would not overrule the President of the Senate's...

...priority power. They would have to really change the way decorum works in the Senate and it would go to the Supreme Court if they tried to neuter the President of the Senate. That's all the more reason to try it.

But simply voting it down over and over again is enough to show that they don't play by real rules, and it makes for good ads on TV.

"Harris tried, 20 times, to bring a COVID relief bill, every time the Senators voted it down."

edit: btw, I posed your situation in #6, I am aware that they would squash it, that's not the point, they would be on record squashing it. Mitch gets away with his fucking shit because he doesn't let anything even be done. Period.

[onenote]

31. The Supreme Court will never take a case relating to an interpretation of the Senate's rules.

[joshcryer]

35. Neutering the Vice President's constitutional power...

...by denying them right to make priority recognition would absolutely 100% go to the SCOTUS.

[onenote]

37. Where in the Constitution does it say the VP has "priority recognition" power.

The Senate is given plenary power to make its rules. It has chosen to give the presiding officer the power to recognize the first person who seeks recognition, but nothing in the Constitution requires that rule. And nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate, exercising its plenary power over its rules, from adopting a different recognition rule.

[joshcryer]

39. This would lead to a physical filibuster.

As to prevent the Presiding officer from calling upon someone, and then giving them priority recognition, they would have to continue the chain of priority ad infinitum until they ran out of bodies.

Let's see what that looks like. Make them do their jobs.

edit: and I don't even know what the rules would look like because it would create a chicken and egg scenario where the presiding officer isn't permitted to call upon someone, then who gets to decide? The question as to what a President was and whether or not they can call upon someone would have to be debated heavily in the courts.

[tritsofme]

47. A majority of senators would decide the question. Nothing would be heavily debated in courts.

The courts don’t decide the Senate’s rules, the Senate does.

[joshcryer]

49. If the "majority of the senators" decided...

...that the President of the Senate can't preside, then the courts would get involved, absolutely.

[tritsofme]

52. Senators can limit by rule the role of the presiding officer, and it would not be reviewable.

[joshcryer]

53. The role is already limited.

To limit further would be to render it meaningless and then they would have standing to ask the SCOTUS what the constitution means by President of the Senate.

[tritsofme]

55. It would be dismissed as a political question before it could be dismissed

due to the fact that the Constitution grants the Senate exclusive power to set the rules for its own proceeding.

[uponit7771]

78. +1,

[sandensea]

32. But you know Bitchy Mitchy's rule on rules:

They're made to be broken, at least by him.

[uponit7771]

77. Moscow Mitch has shown rules are not laws, tradition and decorum are gone after him

[backroadblast]

30. i would love the democrats to be forceful

and hold their boot on the necks of the pukes.
be a dream come true honesty. we're at a tipping point, so i say go for it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

34. Same here,

I really thought "Give 'em Hell Harry" was gonna do exactly that.

It's so disappointing that Democrats are too nice, too polite or whatever, and won't play the same kind of hardball that assholes like Moscow Mitch do.

It's so much worse because the Democrats miss the chance to accomplish things that are in the interest of the country by not being forceful. They need to stop giving a damn what Limbaugh, Hannity and the other Fox "news" scumbags will say about them.

The overwhelming majority of the country would either immediately support them, or come around when they realize that Democrats had acted for the greater good.

[brooklynite]

36. Doesn't quite work that way...

The VP is the President of the Senate, but nothing in the Constitution defines what authority that comes with. Arguably, he/she PRESIDES when the Senate is in Session, but Senate rules give the authority to call the Senate into session (or not) to the Majority Leader.

[joshcryer]

41. The Senate rules do not give that authority.

It is a custom that the Presiding officer gives priority to the majority leader.

[mikelgb]

40. I really hope this happens regardless of the balance of power in the Senate

I have long been an advocate for the VP to regain their proper constitutional role on presiding over the Senate.

[MarcA]

42. VP/President of the Senate has Constitutional standing.

The Party leaders do not. Used with discretion this could force votes and end
moscow mitch's dereliction of duty.

[Progressive dog]

43. The Senaate gets do define

rules and procedures. That is why the VP doesn't get to run the Senate.

[joshcryer]

45. The Constitution defines the Vice President as the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate presides over matters. If the rules are made to neuter the President from calling upon people you are introducing chaos and then the idea of what a Presiding officer is is put into question. Mitch can't make himself President of the Senate.

The VP is limited in what they can do since literally it's calling upon Senators and keeping decorum. But we can still throw a hell of a wrench into things.

Note I am not in any way suggesting this will lead to legislation being passed. It's all to cause a spectacle.

[BobTheSubgenius]

44. Brilliant idea!

I'm taking it on faith that this follows Constitutional law and Senate rules.

[needledriver]

46. If this was something the Vice President could do-

why didn't Joe Biden "take up his duty and preside" to schedule hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland?

[stopdiggin]

48. because this is pie in the sky

dorm room, mildly buzzed, political fantasy.

[needledriver]

51. Thank you! My point exactly n/t

[joshcryer]

56. What are they going to do if she waltz in there and demands to preside?

As is her right by the constitution?

And when Senators stand and she calls upon a Democrat for Priority?

Say she can't call upon anyone for priority?

She can upend all conventions of decorum if she wants.

I'm not saying she will, I doubt the Democrats have the fortitude.

But this is shit Mitch would pull if he could.

[Polybius]

90. Mitch will just tell her to "Go to Hell"

She can't make him do anything.

[uponit7771]

79. Because Biden followed tradition and decorum that don't exist any longer

[greenjar_01]

54. Anything that is simply a custom or norm in favor of Republicans should be ignored

and used to block up process at every step.

They literally blocked Obama's SC nominee for almost a full year, then ran their own through on opposite logic in less than six weeks. They ignored duly issued subpoenas and dared the Congress to enforce them. Block everything.

Block everything. Make them show their ass on everything. Harris should be up there with a gavel every damn day and make them do the damn votes, period.

[joshcryer]

57. Completely agree.

[uponit7771]

80. Exactly make the supreme Court.. Strictly.... define constitution

[roamer65]

58. We need to pickup at least one of those GA seats.

A 51-49 split where we have the VP makes it extremely hard for McConnell to be extremist, especially with Romney, Murkowski and Collins still in the Senate.

[radius777]

66. Mitch will block everything as long as he's the majority leader.

He won't allow votes to come to the floor.

The only true way to solve this is to win those two GA seats.

[TryLogic]

59. Why does the Senate choose their President Pro tempore? Why couldn't the President

of the Senate designate someone?

[joshcryer]

63. Because the Vice President doesn't show up as their Constitutionally given right to Preside?

I mean all she has to do is show up. After the first senator stands down from their point of order, she can call upon anyone. Everything is decorum. "Because we say so." Well, why can't Harris say so? There's nothing in the rules preventing it. And I can't see how they could modify the rules without throwing a wrench in the decorum.

[William769]

60. Then why did President Obama & Vice President Biden do this?

They had eight years. Just saying.

[joshcryer]

62. Obama was the consumate bi-partisan.

Why didn't Obama "put on his walking shoes"? He should've been out there screaming from the rooftops by year 6 of their obstruction.

[William769]

65. Sorry, not buying it.

[uponit7771]

81. Because they were both following tradition in decorum that no longer exist after Moscow Mitch

[Crunchy Frog]

61. I hope we see some real hardball from this administration.

If we don't, I fear that our country is finished.

[Azathoth]

64. It all comes down to what the rules of the Senate say

And frankly, if McConnell has a majority he can change the rules to say anything he likes. Harris could end up "presiding" over the Senate but having no say in anything, procedural or otherwise.

[Sherman A1]

67. Yup

That is how I understand it to be.

[uponit7771]

82. Moscow Mitch showed rules are'nt laws & will be changed & broken at will Constitution is law

[Marcuse]

72. Funny how LBJ tried it and was torn apart by Senate Democrats.

[link:https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Lyndon_Johnson_Dethroned.htm|

[uponit7771]

83. LBJ like Obama follow rules and decorum Moscow Mitch abolished those

... things and they no longer exist Constitution only now

[Polybius]

84. If this was true, then VP Biden would have put forward Garland's nomination

But he couldn't, because Mitch was in charge, not him.

[DeSmet]

86. The real underlying problem

is the notion the majority leader in either legislative branch can refuse to bring a bill to the floor in the first place. It is overreach to say in scheduling what bills are acted on a leader can just throw them out at will. THIS IS NOT JUST VETO POWER AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT ONLY. It is more powerful than a presidential veto. A presidential veto can be nullified by a super majority vote.

[onenote]

87. Short Answer: Joe Biden

Joe Biden spent 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President. There is zero chance that he is going to have Harris disrupt the way the Senate operates.

[SheltieLover]

92. Someone needs to!