At the VP debate, Gwen Ifill, who seems to share my curiosity on the subject, asked the candidates to explain their thoughts on the Constitutional powers and status of the Vice-Presidency, in light of Dick Cheney's recent expansion of the role of that office in government. Sarah Palin's response was intriguing. As the Times summed up,

She said she agreed with Dick Cheney that “we have a lot of flexibility in there” under the Constitution. And she declared that she was “thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also, if that vice president so chose to exert it.” [emphasis added]

This raises the question of what "more authority" might be available to a Vice President, under the Constitution, at the discretion of a Vice President who "so chose to exert it."

There is only one answer to that question, framed by the single Constitutional power that the office of Vice President is invested with. Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, in relevant part, that:

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

So a Vice President Palin could, if she wanted to, be wielding the gavel in the Senate chamber the day after her inauguration. At her own discretion, Democratic Senate majority or not.

There is one reason why this is very important, aside from symbolism. The Senate Rules shift power in a number of ways, most famously by allowing for filibusters, but they are upheld primarily by tradition.

Senate Rule XXII allows for filibusters by requiring the support of a supermajority of 60 Senators to bring "cloture" to an ongoing debate. Palin, as President of the Senate, could declare Rule XXII "unconstitutional" and decree that, in the case of judicial appointments, a simple majority will be sufficient to cut off debate.

In point of fact, a Vice President acting as President of the Senate could scrap the Senate's entire set of procedural rules and write new ones of her own, by Constitutional fiat.

This has never been tested, to my knowledge, by the Supreme Court. . . but the Supreme Court has always been extremely reluctant to tamper with the internal workings of the political branches of the Federal government.

Sound crazy? Perhaps, but it's just what I'd expect a "team of mavericks" to do.

and she is stunningly ruthless, opportunistic, and unscrupulous.... I think she is capable of anything. I also think she is going to be impeached as Governor of Alaska. Unless the GOP is able to rig the vote in enough states to steal the election... then they won't have to bother.

surprised and offended practically everybody by insisting on actually presiding over routine Senate sessions. He didn't, however, attempt to rewrite any Senate rules.

I haven't read the Senate Rules. Are the powers of the president specified? Do they include the power to unilaterally change procedure?

If not, such an attempt by any vice president would be tantamount to a senatorial coup. Given that the Senate has a long tradition of jealousy about its own power, and given that the Republican side is likely to be facing a grim legislative outlook after this election even if McCain does win the presidency, I would guess that the Senate Republicans would refuse to go along with any such scenario. What would be the gain of being able to force nominations to a vote in the face of an angry Democratic majority--who would likely also refuse any legislative concessions at all in retaliation for such arrogance? Palin could perhaps gridlock the Senate, but I don't think she could dictate to it. However, given that our Congress is rapidly approaching the effectiveness level of the Iraqi Parliament, that probably should be considered a possible outcome of a McCain victory.

Will she be allowed to chew gum?

it sounds crazy. Why attack her on what she doesn't mean when you can better attack her on what she does mean?

Do I know my wingnuts or what?

On how the Courts would rule on the separation of powers issue. Not long ago the Courts ruled that the material the Department of Justice removed from Congressman William Jefferson's congressional office had to be returned. They could keep the cold cash found in his home freezer but not what was in his congressional office. The chances are near zero that the Courts would allow a VP Palin to have power over how the Senate conducts its business. Under Palin's view she could put the Senate in recess so McCain could make a number of recess appointments. That would result in a total dictatorship in Washington DC. Even an air head has more common sense than Sarah Palin.

<link>

it's what wingnuts are famous for...