I still find it crazy that, back in 2000, Cheney ran the VP selection board and then elected himself as the best VP candidate

"C'mon, Keith, I don't think there's anybody out there who couldn't knock that particular question out of the park on one try. "
uh yeah, Sarah Fucking Palin

you! and your face!

What are some examples of the strong precedents?

Don't tell me, your face was puffy and red from crying as you typed this.

breaking a tie vote, that's the vice presidents duty in the senate.

The Vice President is not President of the Senate.
What the fuck is the matter with you.
When the Senate is divided 50 by 50, in a two party system, the VP presides over the Senate and may cast the tie breaking vote, and also restores order and keeps time. We saw Cheney do this when Chafee went independent and we were stuck in a quagmire.

This does not mean the VP "runs the Senate."
The VP never "runs the Senate."

So, the joke is you, as it always tends to be anyway.

Oh goody, made-up precedent. Setting the welcome mat for the new regime already are we Ryo?

Thanks for trying to make me look like an asshole, Cokey, by trying to imply that Palin actually is smarter than a third grader. But you're dumber than Palin (because you buy her bullshit) and so you actually haven't shown or proven ANYTHING.

And by not President of the Senate I meant not the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES KIND OF PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

That would be Article I, Section 3, Clause 4, baleen.

Relevant reading:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vi ce_President.htm

Both John Adams and John C. Calhoun took vigorous roles in the Senate, working with senators on policy matters and proposing legislation:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/john _calhoun.pdf

Ryo, your interpretation of the Article I..., isn't quite right. The VP is being established President of the Senate, ONLY so in case of a tie, he is legally allowed to vote as a tie breaker. It is not implied that the VP is the chief executive of the Senate, only that in case of a tie, that the VP has authority to vote.

Article I, Section III, is dealing with the definition of the Senate, not of the Executive. In Clause 4, the VP is mentioned as President before being able to cast a vote, as a matter of a proper linear application of authority. Meaning, it makes sense to grant the VP authority to vote prior to defining the instances he can or cannot vote.

Make sense?

and 5 for the video.

Also, a VP proposing legislation is different than introducing legislation. The VP as a representative of the President, suggesting legislation, is no different than the President calling Senators to the Oval Office. But it is important to realize the VP pushing the President's policy is more like a lobbyist than a Senator. Furthermore the Senators don't have to listen to the VP.

To put this as pleasantly as possible, Simon666, no one has shared that interpretation of the clause in well over 200 years, from the first Vice President on. The Vice President regularly presides as President of the Senate in almost every administration, and not just for tie votes.

The Vice President is indeed the chief executive of the Senate, he presides (when present, otherwise he is replaced by the President pro tempore) over the Senate and directs it on all procedural matters.

I realize the fact that the Vice President rarely presides may confuse people, but their power as such is not really a matter of contention.

By way of example, the Philippines' constitution allows for a similar senate structure, but specifically makes the Chief Executive of the Senate a separate office, vesting in that all the power the Vice President of the United States would have in our set-up.

I'm not ready to concede to your point, unless your claim that nobody has shared that interpretation for 200 years can be supported with evidence. While I'm sure you can trot out evidence that supports your claim (IE: someone makes an interpretation along the same lines as yours), can you provide something definitive that verifies the 200 year timescale?

Also, I think I require evidence as to why my reading would be inaccurate. I don't think the given historicity of a reading necessarily proves legitimacy or not. You need to attack my logic.

I said 200 years, which was rough, because the first vice president (John Adams) presided over the Senate at times other than the vote or ties, meaning that there has never been, in the course of US History, a time when the Vice President was taken to be limited in such a matter.

If you seem upset at my unwillingness to argue sentence structure, it's because precedent would legally be the binding argument here. Also, your argument isn't very good as the subordinate clause is not regarding presiding, but voting, and thus isn't a qualifier on being president of the senate.

The issue did finally make the news, though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27reynolds.html?_r=1 &partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin