Blogs > Cliopatria > Palin's Constitutional Theories

Oct 21, 2008

Palin's Constitutional Theories


by Cliopatria


One unfortunate aspect of the general media narrative about Sarah Palin—that the Alaska governor is, to put it charitably, not too bright—is that too often the few substantive comments she makes get overlooked.

One such comment came in the vice-presidential debate, when—in an otherwise rambling answer near the end of the 90-minute affair—she endorsed a more robust legislative role for the Vice President.

Palin is back at it. Yesterday, in an interview with a local TV station, Palin claimed that the Vice President is “in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they [sic] want to they [sic] can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes.” Perhaps not surprisingly, given the quality of local journalism, the reporter didn’t follow up and ask Palin under what interpretation of the Constitution she could make such a claim.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 10/23/2008

Right. Biden's answer was sloppy -- remarkably so for someone who actually teaches constitutional law in a law school. As a Senator, however, Biden knows full well that the Vice President's office is primarily defined by Article II on the Executive Branch and that, as a practical matter, the Vice President is simply not a part of the Senate leadership. Sure, he or she *can* preside over the Senate whenever he or she wants and can vote in cases of a tie, but Vice Presidents who have exercised real leadership have done so from within their delegated authority in the Executive Branch. Palin appears *not* to know that -- even now.

William Hopwood - 10/23/2008

Speaking of Constitutional coherency, how about this--not from Gov.Palin but from Joe Biden during the recent Biden/Palin debate. As to the VP's duties, Biden confused Article 1 with Article II and got the branches of government mixed up to boot. Had the gaffe been Palin's we wouldn't hear the end of it.

BIDEN: ."..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....The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote.... He has no authority relative to the Congress."

Actually, Article 1 says no such thing. It reads:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided...The Senate
shall choose their other officers and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

Now, as President of the Senate, the VP may elect to act in such a presiding capacity at his discretion, not just to break a tie. This in itself is a Constitutional authority clearly defined therein.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/22/2008

An answer to a third grader ought to be coherent. Senator Kit Bond, R-Missouri, indicates that the Senate leadership is unlikely to welcome taking marching orders from the Vice President. His comment is available on YouTube. Look it up.

William Hopwood - 10/22/2008

Listen to the TV clip again. No real reason for folks in the academic and TV chattering classes (read Chris Matthews) to become hysterical over Gov. Palin's response. This was clearly a question originated by a third-grade child and answered as if addressing such a child. Perhaps that's why the answer was incomprehensible to some who should know better.

Actually the answer was not far off. The VP is indeed President of the Senate and may attend party caucuses in which party policy may be discussed and even made. I don't believe Gov.
Palin implied otherwise.