![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
FILL: Everybody gets extra credit tonight. We're going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.
PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate...
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.
*********
I interpret Governor Palin's words to suggest that she believes the Vice President has more power over the U.S. Senate than is traditionally exercised - that this power is inherent in the Constitution. I understood that this was distinct, beyond the execution of tasks as designated by the President.
Somebody else I was talking with suggested that I am mistaken, and that Gpvernor Palin's point was that the Constitution is vague on the responsibilities of the VP and that the VP could, if the President allowed, have more authority, so long as the VP does not use the authority to work against the Pres or the Senate.
As this latter suggestion makes no sense to me as I re-watch the debate or read the transcript (and my interpretation made zero sense to my friend), I toss it out for other opinions!
PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate...
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.
*********
I interpret Governor Palin's words to suggest that she believes the Vice President has more power over the U.S. Senate than is traditionally exercised - that this power is inherent in the Constitution. I understood that this was distinct, beyond the execution of tasks as designated by the President.
Somebody else I was talking with suggested that I am mistaken, and that Gpvernor Palin's point was that the Constitution is vague on the responsibilities of the VP and that the VP could, if the President allowed, have more authority, so long as the VP does not use the authority to work against the Pres or the Senate.
As this latter suggestion makes no sense to me as I re-watch the debate or read the transcript (and my interpretation made zero sense to my friend), I toss it out for other opinions!
