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.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

The original Mavericks are lifelong democrats and want their name back - I'm serious. As it Happens interviewed the granddaughter on 0ct 6th and it turns out that the term Maverick is their family name. It became associated with contrarian/unusual thought when the ancestor was given cattle as payment in a deal. Instead of branding them he put them on an island in the Rio Grande. But some would swim to freedom.

So when a full grown steer was found on the range, it was deemed a "Maverick" if it did not have a brand...

But as a family of Democrats the want McCain and Palin to stop abusing their family name.