Thom Hartman has been on about "President of the Senate" recently.

[bullimiami]

I think he has a valid point.

Constitutionally the VP is President of the Senate and presides whenever they come to the proceedings.

What’s to stop a VP from coming in and running the floor whenever they want?

Majority Leader is not in the Constitution. Only President and ProTem for when they are absent.

What’s to stop Kamala from coming in and calling to the floor whatever votes she wants called and whatever proceedings she wants?

In the Constitution it says the Senate sets its own rules but this is explicit and would seem to have precedence.

[doc03]

1. If that is true the Republicans would do it. Just because they can. nt

[bullimiami]

4. It would have required a Republican President and an intransigent Senate to even consider it.

We may have that situation in reverse.

Tough times require tough actions.

I’m not seeing the senate has a constitutional leg to stand on. Just parlimentary.

[onenote]

2. Why this won't happen? Because Joe Biden was a Senator for 36 years

and "President" of the Senate for 8.

He's not going to play these games, which only would lead the Republicans (assuming they have a majority, which this idea seems to assume) changing the Senate's rules in a way that limits what the "presiding" officer can do. For example, the rules currently provide that the presiding officer is supposed to recognize the first Senator who seeks to speak. In practice, the presiding officer always recognizes the majority leader first, there is nothing that would stop the Republicans from using the so-called "nuclear" approach to change the rule to match the practice with a simple majority vote.

[House of Roberts]

3. Unless the filibuster is gone,

it only takes one Republican to grind the chamber to a halt, no matter who sits in the chair.