--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very > > simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is "in > > charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in > > there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." > > > > The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not "in > > charge" of the Senate. > Uh, actually the VP is "in charge of" the Senate...at least according > to the dictionary and thesaurus. > > Sorry that you discount the authority of the dictionary but, again, > the phrase "in charge of" pretty much is the same as "presides". > OK, please name me one thing the VP is in charge of in the Senate, other than breaking tie votes? One thing. Is there some process by which they initiate legislation? Are they in charge of hearings or conducting votes or policy meetings of any kind? Please give me some instances when Cheney, the most powerful VP ever, was in charge of the Senate? Cheney's unique legal assertion that he was both in the executive and legislative branches because he "presided" over the Senate was unprecedented because no-one before had ever even thought of the VP as being in the legislative branch (other than very occasionally breaking tie votes) much less in charge of the Senate.
Can a powerful VP meet behind closed doors with Senators and have an influence? Of course, anyone can do that. Does the VP sit up front with a gavel and occasionally "preside" over ceremonial activities? Yes. But there's no formal way for them to "do" anything and being in charge usually has to do with being able to do something.
