There is a dangerous new doctrine being introduced by Sarah Palin regarding the role of the Vice President. (and no, this is not snark) I rarely post these days due to time contraints but for the first time I found myself strongly disagreeing with Keith Olbermann. To understand how unusual this is, I had a local satellite provider remove their service one day after installation when I found out that FOX was mandatory and MSNBC was unavailable. My wife who arranged it, didn't know that I need my daily fix. Now she is hooked as well, and on Rachel. With that said, I thought tonights Special Comment (if that is what it was) missed the boat. After listening to the various clips of Sarh Palin, some of which I have heard repeatedly before, I finally realized that she was not misspeaking or just getting it wrong. She is a polished performer as ackowledged by Tony Knowles and many other. So why is she so cautious on this question. The answer involves the unitary theory of executive power (think signing statements), the nuclear option in the Senate a couple of years ago, the weakening/elimination of habeas corpus, and the gross infringement of our civil liberties under the current administration. Each of these items has a common element
Each of these issues has come into sharp focus over the past eight years as Bush and the Republicans in the House and Senate have attempted to radically rewrite over 220 years of evolving constitutional law. I am not going to detail on the unitary theory of executive power. Go to Wikipedia and on the front page you will find that John Woo, who has acquired a measure of influence in Republican circles, has argued that the use of force by the President is unreviewable by the Congress under this theory.
Regarding the Vice Presidency, the Republicans tipped their hands several years ago when they threatened the nuclear option, take away the filibuster and argued that the Constitution did not provide for it and it could be dismantled at any time. Now imagine if Dick Cheney decided that the filibuster was unconstitutional and would not recognize it as part of Senate procedure. This is not so far fetched as you might think.
Here is a link to the constitution found on the U.S. Senate Website.
>http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a7
And here are some sections from the discussion of the Vice President from that same official U.S. Senate website. U.S. Senate - Role of V.P.:
>
> Vice-Presidential Duties
>
>
.
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent. (my bold)
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. (my bold) Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration. (my bold)
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.
>
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."
You know who Dick Cheney agrees with, and its not Roger Sherman. Remember the arguments how he is not a member of the Executive Branch. Connect the dots. Under a McCain/Palin administration, they would move to abolish centuries of Senate tradition and impose new procedures and roles created by Vice President in accordance with what they view as her Constitutional duties as head of the Senate. The power to make the rules is the power to decide what is heard, when its heard, and ultimately subject the Congress to the dominion of the Executive.
If you think I am an alarmist, think back on how much power has been consolidated in the office of the President. The domination of the other branches by the Executive would be greatly accelerated. I believe she has tipped her hand. Gov. Palin would be an activist V.P. who would seek to take control of the Senate. She is much more wrong than KO has suggested. Sorry this is rushed, but I needed to get this out and look forward to your comments.