The Vice President Could Play a Larger Role

[MineralMan]

The Constitution really only says one important thing about the duties of the Vice President. Constitutionally, he or she serves as the non-voting President of the Senate, except in the case of ties. That role of presiding over the Senate during its sessions has almost disappeared. But, that's a matter of custom, rather than law.

The Senate elects a President pro tempore, to serve when the VP cannot preside. Today, that person is actually the presiding officer of the Senate in normal circumstances, with the VP showing up only for ceremonial events and when there is a tie vote.

However, it does not have to be that way. Any Vice President could, if he or she wished, be the actual presiding officer of the Senate. It would require only that he or she show up and preside. Constitutionally, the Senate could neither protest nor disallow that constitutional role. The role is clearly defined in the Constitution.

I've often wondered why that role has not been taken up by modern Vice Presidents, especially when there is a narrow majority or an actual minority of Senators of the same party as the President. Even without a vote, the person presiding over the Senate can do a great deal to control how the Senate operates as a legislative body. Rather than Orrin Hatch running the day to day senate in chambers, Joe Biden could do that job, if he wished to do it. All he'd have to do is show up there and take the President of the Senate's seat.

Perhaps it's time for Vice Presidents to step up to their constitutionally defined job, take the gavel, and actually serve as the President of the Senate. Perhaps that might create a new environment in that body. I think I like the idea, and would enjoy discussing that option here on DU. Imagine, if you will, VP Elizabeth Warren presiding over the Senate for the next four years. I think that would be a very interesting job for her, and one for which she has the requisite experience.

What say you?

[katmondoo]

1. Sounds like the way to go for me

I would like Elizabeth Warren as VP

[MineralMan]

2. She would be uniquely qualified to preside over the Senate, too.

Her experience there would be invaluable. It would make for a very interesting Senate session in 2017. Very interesting, indeed, regardless of the makeup of the Senate in that year and beyond.

There may be reasons not to do this, but I can't really think of any that couldn't be overcome. It would sure as Hell piss off the Republicans, which would be one good reason to do it, in my opinion.

[Hortensis]

3. Yes, often wondered WHY VP couldn't preside over the Senate

and use whatever power there is in that position. Notably, though, powers are limited. Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader would have far more say over legislation, for instance, and perhaps others would too.

[MineralMan]

4. Having presided over a number of things myself,

there are many ways that position can be used effectively to proceed as one wishes.

It's not just about legislation. It's about process. If you can control the proceedings, you can do a great deal. It's an interesting thing to think about, but we don't have a lot of precedent, so much isn't known about how one would handle that position. It would shake things up considerably, though, I'm sure.

The rules of parliamentary bodies give lots of power to the person who is presiding. Fascinating possibilities present themselves.

[Hortensis]

7. I felt sure there must be SOME things to use

to direct the proceedings. And the president can appoint others to preside and leave, of course, and today we have such things as cell phones, etc., so he or should wouldn't be tied to the chamber but could get updates, give instructions, etc.

I wonder if that last was a significant reason why VPs historically haven't presided--previously not enough power in return for the vast investment of time?

[MineralMan]

8. When the VP isn't in the chamber, the President Pro Tempore takes over,

so, no, he wouldn't be able to appoint someone. However, the power to call sessions to order, call the vote on legislation and adjourn are the President of the Senate's job. Maintaining order is another job of the presiding officer. Those don't seem like that big a deal, maybe, but they are, really. They are all things that control the process, even though they don't control the issues.

For example, the President of the Senate can compel Senators to come to the chambers for a vote. That is a powerful tool in the arsenal, actually. The Presiding officer can determine whether a quorum is present, as well, and recess the Senate if a quorum is not present. Again, that is a powerful tool, if used wisely.

Recognition of Senators who wish to address the Senate is another power that can be used, and is used by Presidents Pro Tempore to control the floor debate.

The Senate is big on parliamentary rules in its operations, and the details of Senate rules include lots of useful things for an active senate President to employ. While they may seem like formalities, they all have a purpose, and that purpose is to move business through the body in some way. I am not an expert on Senate rules, though. They are complex and formalized. A VP who wanted to actually preside would need to become intimate with those rules, to preside most effectively.

I doubt if this will happen, but I'd sure like to see a competent leader in that position, using the Senate rules to best effect. Elizabeth Warren is just the sort of person who would probably be very good at it, I think.

[Hortensis]

13. Who does appoint the pro tempore?

You know, if it's not that the investment of time wasn't considered justified, there should be another reason, not just custom. After all, as you say, there is real power to be used here.

I can certainly see her wringing the most out of process, and she says she loves being in the Senate. This would be a way of staying and being VP. Or just staying in the Senate.

An article I read a couple of months ago said she is a, I think, "rock star" fundraiser and that she is bankrolling much of the Democratic senate candidates' campaign expenses, including a number of women she is trying to bring in. I was surprised because I didn't realize just how important she'd become within the party hierarchy. She'd already apparently been advanced to the Democratic leadership in some way by Reid in recognition of achievements and, of course, if we take the Senate she would end up being very powerful, although others are already in line for minority and majority leaders.

[MineralMan]

14. The pro tempore President is elected by the majority party

in the Senate.

[Hortensis]

16. So, a structural block to a VP's power.

[MineralMan]

18. Not necessarily. A President pro tempore is a necessary

thing, since most VPs don't bother with presiding over the Senate. It's natural that the party in the majority would elects a member of their own party. Even when the Senate majority is with the president's party, a President pro tempore is elected.

However, if the VP is in the Senate Chambers, the VP presides. That's my point with this. All the VP has to do is show up and he or she is the presiding official, without question. That is written in the Constitution and no objection could even be raised. The Constitution trumps the Senate Rules every time.

The acting President of the Senate has broad parliamentary powers, since he or she acts as the chairperson of the proceedings. If you look at the actual Senate Rules, you can see just how much power the presiding officer has. Much of it cannot be challenged, since the acting President can rule without debate on a number of procedural things.

Procedure is everything in parliamentary bodies. Most of what happens in the Senate is procedural. Many things occur through suspension of the rules for specific purposes, and a lot of rules are not followed closely, unless there's a reason to do so. One of the chief powers of the presiding officer is to make sure the rules are followed, which is where there are ways to push issues.

For example, if there is not a quorum, the President or acting President can compel Senators to come to the chambers to make up a quorum. Quorum calls are often inconvenient for Senators, who would rather be doing something else. They are a powerful tool to require attendance during the session.

It's very complicated, really, but it's amazing what a presiding officer can manage while remaining within the rules.

[Hortensis]

20. It sounds like it. I have trouble imagining someone

as dynamic as Warren, and as committed to effecting change, not using everything she had to do it. The fact that she would need to be physically there whenever she wanted to take charge is obviously a limitation, however.

All interesting to speculate on. Supposedly Schumer's in line for Majority if we get the Senate, and he might have some opinions about changes to his powers. But what about, horrors, if we don't? The thought of Warren's stick occasionally in McConnell's spokes is at least a pleasant one.

[MineralMan]

22. Hmm...yes. The VP as President of the Senate could

also be used as a Sword of Damocles from time to time to keep things moving. The VP could walk in there any day and would be the President of the Senate. That modern VPs haven't done that does not mean that they could not. The Constitution, in Article II, speaks loudly and clearly.

John Adams actually took that role seriously and acted as the Senate President most of the time. Boy, did that piss off the Senate, too. Various VPs have served in that capacity from time to time. It's not a popular thing to do with the elected Senators, but it is a constitutional power of the VP.

I'd like to see it asserted from time to time, at least, just to reinforce that. It's an interesting possibility that has not been put into play in my lifetime. Perhaps it might be, though, to good effect.

[Hortensis]

29. It is strange that it has not been used,

but perhaps it's because the Sword changes hands so often. That apparently keeps a number of actions from being taken. I was thinking a little notice that it was hanging over their heads might be helpful, but maybe that advance warning would just cause them to change position. I'm anything but a fan of McConnell's, but apparently he made mastery of congressional maneuvers a priority very early on. Seems only sensible, even if majority leader isn't your lifetime goal.

[JaneyVee]

5. Clinton/Warren 2016

[MADem]

6. Probably because, most of the time, the job is boring as hell.

That's why all that gavel pounding and Roberts Rules of Order stuff is doled out on a watchbill to the most JUNIOR members--to force them to learn how the Senate operates and to understand the procedures and protocol.

Can you imagine having to SIT there while this idiot or that read their bullshit into the record for the CSPAN cameras, day in and day out? It would be stultifying. Much of the time, the chamber is nearly empty, and the speakers are talking to themselves.

I think Joe Biden would much rather have the CANCER MOONSHOT portfolio than have to sit there and listen to Senator Doesnuttin talk about naming the federal building in his state after some local hero, or propose naming the overpass bridge on some big highway running through the state after some kid who was killed in Falluja, or something.

And so long as the GOP has the majority, they get to set the agenda. They'd make sure there wasn't much going on every time the VP showed up.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, that's how it has been done. I'm not sure, though, that is how it

must be done. I agree that it would not be a plum job, but it would be interesting to see how far it could be pushed. I suspect that the complexity of Senate rules could be turned into a very interesting series of changes. Rules are funny things. They can be honored lightly or enforced strictly.

I'm thinking some strict enforcement might produce salutary results. But, I'm not an expert in those rules. Besides, I think the Republicans are not going to have the majority after the 2016 election. I'm almost certain of that.

[MADem]

10. Good luck getting the party in power to agree to cede their propers to the Veep. I just don't see

it succeeding. I don't see the DEMS liking it either--one thing our side gets better than the other team, what goes around, comes around.

I have noticed down the years how people say mean things about Harry Reid, but what most don't realize is that NO ONE knows the ins and outs of Senate rules better than he does, and he frequently uses them to our advantage.

I don't want to see a President picking their VEEP because they know the Senate rule book. I'd rather they pick a VEEP who is prepared to be POTUS.

I think the best way to make the Senate work is to aggressively challenge and vote out the obstructionists.

[MineralMan]

24. "...to aggressively challenge and vote out the obstructionists"

Indeed. I'm hopeful that occurs in November. It should, and that's one more reason that Democrats should turn out in November in massive numbers. A sitting President needs a friendly Senate to make things happen.

[MADem]

31. Yep....and nowadays, a sitting POTUS needs a VPOTUS who will work for a living.

Back (waaaaaaaay back) in the day, it used to be that the LOSER (the one with the next largest vote - get) got to be VP! LOL--imagine Trump in charge of the Senate!

I guess it gave 'em something to do while standing by in case the Big Guy died.

[treestar]

11. Not a bad idea at all

I do like how Obama has included Biden in everything, though.

[Hekate]

12. Dick Cheney was "involved" in the Senate, iirc.

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not so sure enshrining that in the veep's job description would be a good idea.

[MineralMan]

15. It's already enshrined in the Constitution

as the definition of the Vice President's powers. It just hasn't been used after the 19th century. It's still the VP's job, though, if he or she wants to do it. I'm just thinking in writing here. I wonder how that constitutional power could be used in a beneficial way.

[Hekate]

17. Thanks for the points you've been making, MM. Sometimes I get these flashbacks, you know how it is.

[MineralMan]

19. My pleasure. I love looking at small ways power is managed.

I'm sort of an amateur parliamentarian, really. I like details, and have read Roberts Rules of Order several times. It's sort of the Bible of parliamentary rules, and reflects our own Congressional rules pretty much. It's actually based on them, so I understand how our Congress works fairly well.

However, I have not observed it in operation for any extended period. When I do, though, I understand why and how the rules work.

I also understand why the VP hasn't normally presided regularly over Senate sessions. The division of powers makes it more than a little awkward. However, the Constitution is quite clear that the BP IS the President of the Senate. It's just not normally done to have the VP there actually presiding, and I think it would be interesting to do that from time to time.

I guarantee that the party that is not the same as the President would not like it one bit, which is more reason to do it from time to time, just to assert that particular constitutional power. I wish it would be used more. The VP can walk in there and preside at any time or all the time, if he or she wishes. Nobody, including the President, can prevent it. It is basic to the job of VP.

The possibilities are interesting to me.

[MADem]

32. That little f-cker had an OFFICE over on the House side too.

Totally inappropriate, the way he leaned on the GOP delegation. His hand was far too heavy.

[Hekate]

33. Baaaad flashbacks

[MADem]

34. Operatives running around the House at three in the morning, arm-twisting legislators....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. which would also mean that the republican VP like cheney could influence a democratic Senate

that is way too much executive power.

while congress is currently useless it will not always be so. while Democrats control the executive branch it will not always be so.

i'd be wary of making the VP more important in the legislative branch

[MineralMan]

23. Frankly, custom is the only reason the VP doesn't do it.

The Constitution still includes that role, though. I just find it an interesting thing that could be exercised.

Actually, Cheney did attempt to use that power to blur the distinction between the Executive and Legislative branches. Not by presiding over the Senate, but in other ways.

There are arguments that the Constitution writers didn't really consider the VP position to be part of the Executive. Custom has shifted it into the Executive branch, however, since the VP can, and sometimes does, become the President.

However, the Constitution wasn't amended in Section II to change the fact that the VP is the President of the Senate. That remains within the VP's power. It's a very interesting little blip in how things actually work, rather than how they are described in the Constitution.

It presents some possibilities, I think, within the Constitution. Nobody's tested it, though. It would not be a popular thing with the Senate, though, I'm certain. They understand it too well.

In reality, I see it only as something that could be called upon to get action out of the Senate, if necessary. I doubt it will be asserted, however, although I'd love to watch it happen, just to see the reaction.

[LongtimeAZDem]

25. That's why I want to to be the Jewish guy with the funny accent

Al Franken!

[MineralMan]

26. Al's a very, very bright person, and I'm betting he

has studied the Senate Rules thoroughly. He seems like someone who would do that, just to make sure he understands them.

I'm not really sure he wants to be VP, though. I think he's very happy in his role as Senator. I think he's doing a fine job of representing Minnesota, my current state of residence, too.

[tonyt53]

27. But the Senate majority leader still dictates what would be voted on.

That separates the executive and legislative branches of government.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. this is something that the republicans will do

wish "we" had the balls to do it now

[frazzled]

30. There's little to no power to that position

It's pretty much ceremonial: calling on Senators to speak, ruling on points of order (which the Parliamentarian generally decides anyway), and reporting the votes. That's pretty much it.

The presiding officer sits in a chair in the front of the Senate chamber. The powers of the presiding officer of the Senate are far less extensive than those of the Speaker of the House. The presiding officer calls on senators to speak (by the rules of the Senate, the first senator who rises is recognized); ruling on points of order (objections by senators that a rule has been breached, subject to appeal to the whole chamber); and announcing the results of votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Presiding_over_the_Senate

Aside from the VP, the president pro tem of the Senate rarely even presides him or herself, but rather delegates it to members on a rotating basis so that they can learn the parliamentary procedure.

I'm not sure what benefit accrues to having the Vice President preside over the Senate, except for the "look" of it.

[book_worm]

35. Actually many VP's have already played major roles in administrations

it started really with Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale but has continued since then in many instances. For instance, VP Biden has been a very influential VP and a top adviser of President Obama's.

[Eric J in MN]

36. How has Biden been influential as VP? NT

NT