Re: Foul bleeping mouth means something?


"David Friedman" <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ddfr-77B3C0.00501713122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <3XI0l.10082$x%.8056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And my understanding of current Senate rules is that the VP gets
to
rule on disputes about the rules and it requires more than a
majority
to overrule him. I believe that was an issue at some point in the
last
eight years.

Can you find a cite for that? (Because I'm interested, not because
I'm contradicting you.)

While googling for that, I found this, which suggests that Palin's
description of the job wasn't as far off as many suggest:

---
One of the most outward symbols of that power shift in the Bush
years
has been Vice President *** Cheney¹s attendance at weekly Senate
Republican strategy luncheons. Cheney¹s access to lawmakers enabled
the
White House to extend its reach into the legislative branch in ways
unmatched in modern presidential history.

Congressional observers say Cheney¹s presence helped create an
atmosphere in which many Republicans favored party unity above
congressional independence from the executive branch < perhaps most
forcefully in debates over national security and the Iraq war.

³Cheney would come in there and try to force discipline on the
Republican senators,² said Rutgers University Professor Ross Baker,
who
studies Congress.

³He was the Bigfoot that came into those meetings,² Baker continued.
³If
someone got out of line, he would put a thumb in their eyes.
----
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/dec/07/biden-unwelcome-senate-huddle
s-where-cheney-wielde/

Yes, Cheney's a bully (or a forceful leader, if you prefer.) But this
piece talks about attending luncheons, not presiding over the Senate.
He'd be able to do that regardless of what Article 1 says. (And LBJ,
whom I'd need to be persuaded was less in the Senate than influential
than Cheney, did his arm-twisting of the Congress as president, not
vice-president.)

To say it another way, Cheney could have attended House luncheons to
the same effect, if he'd seen the need. (I expect that Tom DeLay
didn't need another enforcer.) To say it a third way, the
Constitution doesn't make the president's political strategist the
President of the Executive Departments, but Rove spent significant
time meeting with executive branch poltical appointees, making sure
they were all moving in the same direction. Thamnks for finding this,
but it doesn't say that it's the VP's job to influence senators.



I think what I am remembering is what was referred to in 2005 as the
nuclear option, a way in which the Republicans, with a majority in
the
senate but fewer than 60 votes, could prevent the Democrats from
filibustering judicial nominees. One step in the process depended on
the
VP's power, as president of the senate, to preside and rule on rules
disputes. I haven't yet found a precise description of the legal
situation that applies. Here's the closest I could come:

1. The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
2. At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
3. Majority Leader Frist raises a point of order, saying debate
has
gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain
time
frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
4. Vice President Cheney -- acting as presiding officer --
sustains
the point of order.
5. A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
6. A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor
(the
appeal).
7. This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be
subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case
of
a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
8. With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the nominee; this
vote
requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has
effectively
been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/i/filibuster.htm

So the crucial point seems to be that the VP, as presiding officer,
gets
to sustain a point of order.

Though the most junior Repubican Senator could do the same, and would
if so instructed by the Majority Leader. That's why I meant by
presiding over the Senate granting no actual power. All the important
decisions are delegated to the party leadership.


.