https://gregolear.substack.com/p/whos-a … WcDLsbQlHU
"The Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate. To disarm Mitch, all MVP Kamala Harris has to do is follow the Constitution"
I found this to be very interesting and would love to hear thoughts from those of you who have more knowledge than I do about such matters. Credence? GA?
I only wished that Biden had played the more active role during Obama's term.
Taking back what was once delegated is a great idea and will make VP Harris one busy battle ax. McConnell is going to chafe, but putting him under pressure has to have a positive outcome. VP Harris will have to keep her thumb on McConnell and not let him intimidate her.
We can stop McConnell from single handedly and arrogantly sitting on legislation.
This is good and will help take the wind from his sails.
But in the current world of extreme partisanship, I see a Republican Party who has hardly acknowledged that Biden/Harris wins after over a month, as not being cooperative short of their having a pistol to their heads. Obstruction to a man or woman is the new reality. Harris cannot totally stop GOP obstruction if all GOP vote against the Biden agenda in lockstep. And the way that they have behaved lately, that is what I anticipate. So, I want those two Senators in Georgia to be Democrats as the most certain assurance that Biden can hit the ground running on January 20th.
But, I welcome any option that mitigates McConnell power in Congress, even if we are short on ability to take over majority in the Senate.
I am still hoping for the Senate win in Georgia but should it go the other way, I hope VP Harris will exercise her constitutional powers to stop McConnell's obstruction.
This may well be an overlooked Constitutional "check and balance" provision that can be used by the Executive Branch relative to the Legislative one.
Well, if there were ever a time to bring it out of mothballs, it is now.
You may be premature in believing the author's contention that the VP does have such "Constitutional powers." I strongly believe such actions would get a SCOTUS review, and I don't think, (just my opinion), that such powers would be recognized as the intentions of the Framers.
I freely admit I have no expertise in this area. It appears you and credence, who I both trust in this regard, disagree?
I hope the author and credence know what they're talking about. :-)
I am not a Constutional Law scholar, but I believe that there is room for the interpretation of the author regardless, if he is taking a partisan tack. Please see my response to GA.
Yes, Cred and I do differ on whether this would be a SCOTUS-interpreted Constitutional issue, but we don't disagree on the negative impact of the current Majority Leader's, (any Majority Leader), power to control the Senate's actions.
We just have different opinions on the path to address that problem. I do not want to give the executive branch any power—beyond the power of veto, over our legislative branches. The voice of the people, (the House), and the wisdom of the states, (the Senate), should not be subordinated to the popular choice of the people, (the Executive branch).
Gee, GA, the advise and consent provision allows the Senate and the majority leader to basically control all of Biden's Cabinet appointments. Every branch has checks and balances that apply to them and I like it that way.
The check I speak about would at least require the Senate to bring legislation to the floor for a vote and not have any one person hold up the "people's business" for solely political reasons.
You appear to be supportive of executive branch control of a legislative branch of our Congress. Are you sure you want that?
Would you still support that with a Republican VP and a Democrat Senate?
https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/bl … majorities
Yes, this speaks of the provision in the Constitution that allow the Vice President to take more than just a tie breaking role. And the Constitution is explicit regarding the authority of the "presiding officer, there can be nothing to interpret by bringing such a question to the Supreme Court.
"But in the Senate, the Constitution makes it unlikely that members will do the same because it charges the Vice President with administering the institution’s rules and ensuring order in the legislative process."
That is all I need to get McConnell or any "majority leader from gumming up the works with sheer partisanship and that can apply to either side. We may well not be able to do nothing if the VP and the SML are of the same party. But, we can and should exercise that authority in this case. After all did not McConnel make a distinction for withholding Obama's SCselection while not applying the same rule consistently base on some rot about the majority leader of one party can ignore the SC picks from the Executive of the other?
This is not vengeance but working within the law to our advantage, everybody else does. We are authorized to use the law and work within the terms of the Constitution and I don't give a damn about custom, to curb the obstruction. That is exactly what I want VP Harris to do.
I strongly disagree with you Cred. Not because I am defending McConnell, (or any majority leader), because I am not. Like you, I don't like the 'supreme' power that has matriculated to that position.
But, more importantly, for me, I don't want any executive branch machinations to be able to control one of our legislative branches.
Just imagine a VP Harris extreme—she could control all of the Senate's actions, (if your and PrettyPanther's author's thoughts are correct), except for the actual votes. I will ask again, do you really want any executive branch to have that power over a legislative branch?
Also, even in my limited walk-about, I am not as sure as you seem to be that this wouldn't be a Constitutional issue that would be put to SCOTUS. I am not as confident as you with your interpretation of the Constitution's wording or intent.
Could you give an example of how it would be a very bad thing?
I don't consider ensuring an orderly process as being "control", the members still vote independently. But, I prefer this "check" over endless obstruction without challenge by one individual SML. That is too much power with far reaching effects for which I cannot abide.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
It is hard for me to imagine a result from this scenario that would be worse than the ongoing obstruction that has occurred over the last few years. Presumably, control by the VP would only change things if the Executive and Senate are controlled by opposing parties. So, as you say, in this case, Republicans would still have the majority vote. They would simply have to actually exercise that vote more than otherwise. I can't imagine how that would be so bad, but maybe GA will come up with an example that would help me better understand how that would be a bad thing.
I followed your link, and must admit that when I ran across this blurb in the first part of the opinion article:
". . . while Trump blithely cages infants and doles out needed medicines and hospital beds to his crime cronies."
. . . the credibility of the author's view was immediately diminished.
However, following his thought, that as the Presiding Officer of the Senate, the Vice President, could control floor access to Senators is beyond my Constitutional understanding. Google results tell me that this thought is contrary to both historical and modern political traditions of the Vice President's Senate role. Almost all traditional references were to the VP's tie-breaking power only.
In the one reference I found relative to a VP being more involved in Senate procedures, (this was relative to VP Agnew), it turned out that this was a no-go. Agnew retreated to his executive branch duties after being rebuffed for his Senate procedure incursions.
So I can't say whether the author is right or wrong, but it appears that, historically, his thought is 'non-conventional'.
But, with those thoughts in mind, I would not disagree with the criticisms of the partisan powers held by the Senate majority leader. In this case, it is a Republican, McConnell, but I disagree with that power regardless of who is the majority leader. Unfortunately, for me, I also disagree with the premise of the VP exercising more power in the function of the Senate. I see the VP as an executive branch position and I do not think it is an appropriate thing to have this type of executive branch power influencing one of our legislative branch houses.
Of course, all that is no more than my opinion. My 2-cents, but I think my reasoning is more valid than your linked authors. His seems a purely partisan opportunistic interpretation.
PP: From your mouth to God's ears. I've already voted in Georgia and here's hoping. If you look at the breakdown of votes in the general election by county, about 50 counties the vote went one way or the other by ONE VOTE. Nothing is a given here.
by Clive Donegal 8 years ago
When does intentionally discrediting the executive branch rise to the level of treason?When the U.S. president is constantly defending himself and his administration against unrelenting attacks by a political faction amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy?Rivals once maintained a veneer of...
by PrettyPanther 21 months ago
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday that "Medicare for All" will not move in the Senate as long as Republicans control the chamber. "Not as long as I'm majority leader. It ought to be Medicare for none. …So, if Mitch had his way, no one would be...
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
I have to admit this person makes some good points... This group wants more people to stand up and admit these points are valid as happening...do you admit that?Obama Executive Branch Openly Denigrates the ConstitutionTELL CONGRESS: REMOVE THE TYRANT – IMPEACH NOW Obama...
by VC L Veasey 6 years ago
Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's issued the most?
by Lela 3 years ago
Of the 3 EQUAL branches of government, which branch is the FBI considered a part of?1. The Department of Justice (Judiciary) 2. The Executive Branch, or 3. The Legislative branch.
by Scott Belford 10 months ago
Now that the Trumplicans in the Senate abdicated on their duty to hold a fair trial and voted to let Donald Trump remain in office, did that mark the end of our democracy as we know it?Consider:1. There isn't a thing a president can do that will warrant removal if the Senate is made up of a...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|