And as I understand, under current practice, the duties of the president are often delegated even down further..

Seriously, Michael I want to see what you have to say. I’m not defending Palin–I had an argument the other day with someone who was insisting the VP only casts a tie vote and goes to funerals. The Constitution spells out a specific role, which has changed over time as the power has been delegated.

I don’t think I agree with Cheney’s legal standing though.

Yup.  She was bound to get something right.  At least she pays attention to her constitutional studies.

Sarah Palin is right, and she’s been very careful to use words like “IF they WANT to,” or “flexibility,” during the Vice Presidential debate. Her answer was consistent with both the Constitution and HISTORICAL PRECENDENT. (Seriously, do you guys really think her team of debate coaches wouldn’t have anticipated that question??)
<p>
The Washington Post’s Barton Gellman, author of a new biography of Dick Cheney’s vice presidency, said that the idea of “flexibility” for the VP is a signature Cheney idea… The idea of “flexibility” on the one hand and “do what we have to do,” those are two of the watch words of a man who believes in executive supremacy and believes that other branches of government and the public actually cannot restrict the executive.
<p>
During the VP Debate, Sen. Joe Biden claimed, referring to Dick Cheney, “Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”
<p>
He was wrong. Article II defines the Executive Branch, not Article I.
<p>
Article I, Section 3 defines the responsibilities of the vice president: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
<p>
Thus, the vice president PRESIDES OVER the senate… BUT… he/she cannot vote except to break a tie. The VP is the LEADER of the senate, a status that is analogous to the role of Speaker of House. (Harry Reid is the senate majority leader, not the senate leader.)
<p>
“The FEDERALIST PAPERS, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, are generally considered to reflect the rationale of the framers of the Constitution. This is how they characterized the responsibilities of the vice president (Federalist 68):
<p>
“The vice president is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter. The appointment of an extraordinary person, as vice president, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the president should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the state from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the vice president may occasionally become a substitute for the president, in the SUPREME EXECUTIVE MAGISTRACY, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this state. We have a lieutenant governor, chosen by the people at large, who PRESIDES in the Senate, and is the CONSTITUTIONAL substitute for the governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the vice president to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.”
<p>
In his 2004 treatise on Alexander Hamilton, Ron Chernow quoted a senator who characterized how Vice President Aaron Burr – functioning under President Thomas Jefferson-had PRESIDED over the Senate “with great ease, dignity and propriety.” He added that Burr was so estranged from Jefferson that his most notable achievements had come in the LEGISLATURE.
<p>
Now, listen to how Gov. Palin depicted this role: “Our founding fathers were very wise in allowing through the Constitution much FLEXIBILITY in the office of the Vice-President. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position.”
<p>
Who would have thought that Palin would know the proper job-description for the office she seeks…while Biden would be totally misguided regarding a position in the body in which he had served for three and a half decades?”

“president of the senate”, to me means “in charge” of the Senate.  And yes, I do think she was simplifying for a 3rd grader to understand.  Nothing wrong with that.

How can you people justify Gov Palin’s answer to a 3rd grader re: duties of a VP
- Please woman or not she is a airhead.  She should go on that show ”Are you smarter than fifth grader”

Mongo,

Constitutionally, she could preside over every single Senate meeting if she chose to do that. Recent tradition has just been delegating power to other members of the Senate, although the VP in the past has had that role more consistently.

In that capacity though, she is as much in charge as the speaker is of the house, although the Senate has a few different rules of order she’d need to follow.

People calling her stupid for this (Liz Hayes) need to either be less dense or read more about our government and its history

while you started out with balance, you lost it when you write “in charge” is not even almost correct.”  of course its basically correct to say that the presiding officer of the Senate could be considered “in charge” of the Senate when talking to a class of third graders. this is such a non-story, and you challenge the notion that the media is perversely liberal in its bias. why doesn’t anyone write an article about how Joe Biden thinks we need 3 words: “J-O-B-S.”  what in God’s green earth did he mean by saying that? Joe Biden must be STUPID. God help us if Joe Biden becomes Vice President. oh, and like with Gov. Palin, we ought to check Biden’s DNA to see if he’s actually a man because his policies are so feminine.

First, the idea that because the Constitution says the VP “shall be President of the Senate,”  Palin could “get in there and make some policy” or be, in any real sense, “in charge of the U.S. Senate” is completely wrong.

The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives the House and the Senate the power to make their own rules.  These rules are very clearly spelled out, and under these rules, the Speaker of the House has quite a lot of power and the Presiding Officer of the Senate has almost none.  This is why the Speaker is a big deal and most people don’t know who the President pro tem of the Senate even is without looking it up (it’s Robert Byrd, by the way, but the job’s few “duties” are usually shuffled off onto a rotation of junior Senators).

The Senate rules can change–they have changed over time.  *That’s* why the role of the VP with respect to the Senate has changed.  It’s not because past VPs just showed a little more initiative and get up ‘n’ go.  It’s because the Senate operated under different rules.  And who can change the rules?  The Senate.  So, basically, the U.S. Senate is in charge of *itself*.  The VP is “President of the Senate” because the Constitution says so, and can cast tie votes because the Constitution says so.  But he/she can’t do anything else unless the *Senate* says so.  That’s how a government of enumerated powers works.

Also, I’m very glad people are reading the Federalist Papers (or at least reposting the bizarrely capitalized snippet that’s been circulating the interwebs).  But here’s what I get from the excerpt you posted, which is Hamilton’s argument for why we should elect a VP at all (instead of just appointing someone to fulfill the VP’s few Constitutional duties):

1) We decided to make the VP President of the Senate (instead of just letting the Senate pick its own leader) because we didn’t want to *take away* power from one of the states by giving them a less influential Senator (a Senator with no vote);

2) We need to elect a VP (and not simply have one appointed) because that person could have to assume “SUPREME EXECUTIVE MAGISTRACY” (caps yours) not over the *Senate* but over the *country*.  In other words, the VP could become President, so we need to choose them by a process of election, not appointment.

Basically, it’s this second point that underlines why the Founding Fathers *really* felt we needed a VP.  Because the VP’s most important and critical role is to step into the place of the President if needed.  That is what the VP does–be ready to serve, so that the United States is never for a moment without a clearly identified and capable Chief Executive.  That is by far the VP’s most important role.  So, what you tell a third grader who wants to know, “What is the Vice President’s job?”  is “Work with the President and make sure you know and understand everything the President is doing, so that if you have to take over at a moment’s notice, you can.”

At least that’s what I tell my own third-grade son.