Sarah Palin Explains the Role of the Vice President, and Gets It Wrong

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was asked recently (by a third-grade student) about the job of the Vice President.  Here is her answer:

[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

Here is a YouTube clip of her answer:

Palin is wrong.  The Vice President is not “in charge” of the Senate, and does not “get in there” to participate in the Senate’s policy-making mechanism, which is invested in its committee structure and floor debates.  The VP may cast a vote only if the Senate is equally divided, and does not serve on any committees or participate in floor debates.

Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”  Palin may have been thinking about the “President of the Senate” clause, but at the U.S. Senate website we find this statement:

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.

In the very early years of the Senate, the President of the Senate played a very active role in its proceedings:

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.

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. 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.  (From the U.S. Senate website.)

Palin does not strike me a student of either history or parliamentary procedure, so I doubt she had in mind the early history of Senate.  And her answer clearly indicates that she’s thinking about the present role of the Vice President vis-a-vis the Senate.  But perhaps she misspoke, and envisions an expanded role for the VP in the Senate.  But in what capacity does she expect to fulfill this role?  By directing floor debates?  Is she qualified to adminster the Senate’s parliamentary rules?  (I doubt it.)  Does she expect to serve on committees?  Does she expect a Democratically-controlled Senate to be receptive to her effort to inject herself into the day-to-day business of the Senate?

Gov. Palin needs to clarify her remarks with a detailed statement that outlines her understanding of the Vice President’s job relative to the United States Senate.  Until she does, it’s difficult to believe she fully understands the nature of the position she is pursuing.