> Sam wrote: > The Constitution, though, actually says the vice president is always > president of the Senate and legal scholars say he has the right to > preside at any time.
But the word "preside" is mostly meaningless. The VP's only role is to cast a tie-breaking vote. That's it. Now it's true that it's convention that the VP essentially never do a thing in the senate except and unless a tie-break is needed. What that leaves open - if one is willing to break convention - is for the VP to attempt to influence senators. But that's it. So Ms. Palin - and you - are wrong on 2 counts: (1.) The VP is not "in charge" of the senate. The VP can "preside" if they wish to break convention, but there's no voting power and thus solely procedural. Further, the role can be molded via resolution. (2.) They have no power to make any policy changes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:275944 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
