0

The Vice President is President of the Senate. Now even in the extremely weak President role of the Articles of Confederation, the President was understood as having some influence over debate. In what sense does someone preside over a body if they do not even restrain debate? There are plenty of rules besides floor debate where the Senate would retain control, notably the committee system. Just to add another historical touch, John Adams first Vice President under the US Constitution, gave lengthy speeches from the chair, indicating some control over debate.

Does founding intent give a clear answer here?

Improve this question
7
  • 3
    The Rules of the Senate, which the Senate is constitutionally entitled to make for itself, lay out how debates work, and exactly what role is played by the presiding officer. So I think you'll find your answers there. The Vice President always has the power to act as presiding officer, but since the presiding officer has relatively little power under those rules, and the VP usually has better things to do, they usually don't show up, and a President Pro Tempore acts in their place.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Jun 21 at 7:13
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because the rules of senate belong to Politics, not here.
    – Trish
    Commented Jun 21 at 7:30
  • I don't think I understand what you are asking. Are you asking whether the rules of the Senate are potentially unconstitutional because they don't give the Vice President enough power to influence or "restrain" debate? I guess that would be a valid Law.SE question, but it sounds very far-fetched.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Jun 21 at 8:02
  • @NateEldredge but... the rules of senate can't be reviewed by courts in the first place!
    – Trish
    Commented Jun 21 at 9:28
  • 3
    Laws that are unreviewable by the courts are still laws.
    – bdb484
    Commented Jun 21 at 12:18

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

By modern convention, the VP acts as the Senate's chair only on ceremonial occasions or to break ties

However, before the 1950s, VPs acted as chair most of the time and in that role were active participants in debate although the exact amount differed depending on the individual VP. VPs of this time were not actually involved in the President’s administration and were considered to primarily a part of the legislature rather than the executive.

This changed following World War II, with VPs becoming a politically active part of the executive and stepping back from their role as President of the Senate. The role of the President Pro Tempore, who by convention is the senior person in the majority party, Has expanded to fill the void, although Charing the Senate on a day-to-day basis usually falls to a nominee of the President Pro Tempore, usually a junior Senator from the majority party.

Very little of how the Government operates in practice is actually in the Constitution, for example, the committee system of Congress is not in the Constitution. Apart from the existence of the roles, and a very short list of ceremonial duties for the VP, almost all of how the Senate actually organises itself is up to the Senate.

So, of course the founders had no idea how this would work 250 years later. For example, the original idea was that the VP would be the runner up in the Presidential election, i.e. the President’s biggest rival. That worked about as well as a chocolate frypan.

The system was designed to be deliberately loose so that future generations could shape it to their needs. That’s why it’s lasted so long - the median age of Constitutions around the world is 7 - France is on its Fifth Republic with 3 monarchies and 2 empires since the founding of the USA. Prescriptive Constitutions stop working and get abandoned, permissive ones last.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .