AHC: Give the Vice President a Serious Role in the United States Senate

The Vice President of the United States serves as the President of the United States Senate, but this role has evolved into a purely ceremonial one. How can we get the Vice President to have a role in the Senate on par with the role of the Speaker of the House in the House of Representatives? Also, how would this impact his relationship with the President and American politics in general?

Anaxagoras said:

The Vice President of the United States serves as the President of the United States Senate, but this role has evolved into a purely ceremonial one. How can we get the Vice President to have a role in the Senate on par with the role of the Speaker of the House in the House of Representatives? Also, how would this impact his relationship with the President and American politics in general?

Click to expand...

POD would have to happen at the Constitutional Convention when the Executive Branch was being hammered out. Perhaps the Founding Father's decided that the Vice Presidency should be a separate office from the Presidency, spelling out that the candidates have to run on separate ballots. Allowing him (or her) to have a direct hand in the creation of bills, handy if the VP and the POTUS are of the same party, an additional check on power if they are not.

In either case the President would be required to negotiate with the VP on all legislation in order to get anything through the Senate.

Though an exception can be made if the nation is in a officially declared State of War. But to get that through Congress would also require the VP and POTUS to be on the same page, but afterward anything relating to the war (exact words) would require the VP to assist the President in the matter with the only exception being anything that counts as a 'High Crime or Misdemeanor' that would be an Impeachable offence.

Well, the first requirement would be to have the first VP (whether that's Adams or someone else) take a more active role in the Senate from the get-go.

Beyond that, you have the natural problem that whoever is VP may not be of the same party as the majority of Senators, which seriously weakens his power. If he can't rely on his party to pass bills and sustain his motions, he quickly becomes fairly unimportant. Given that, in one of the most blinding oversights of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers managed to ignore the inevitable development of parties, that's hard to avoid. Now I suppose you could develop a tradition where the VP is the leader of the President's party in the Senate (a less powerful position, but still a significant one, as e.g. Nancy Pelosi in the House can attest).

Just a Rube said:

Well, the first requirement would be to have the first VP (whether that's Adams or someone else) take a more active role in the Senate from the get-go.

Click to expand...

The problem is it *was* Adams, and that he did try to assume a more active role, trying to act as a Speaker of the Senate.

The Senate reacted poorly, Washington sided with the Senate, Adams became an impotent and grumpy fellow at the top of the chamber. No Vice President ever really challenged the system after that since Jefferson was a rules nut and thus help enshrine the system in the Senate and spent most of his Vice Presidency promoting nullification and secession. And then of course following *that* you had Aaron Burr, who was politically castrated by his failure in 1800 and spent barely any of his term in Washington, also preferring to promote secession with a heavy dash of filibustering instead. And by the time you got George Clinton in office, a quiet Vice President was just how things were done and that was that.

How about someone more likable, but still as motivated, as Adams as the first VP? As always the eyes fals on Jay. Could he cement power and convince the Senate by virtue of not alienating them like Adams?

A strong later VP might also be able to reverse the trend and restore the VP to a position of power in the senate. All you need is for one VP to do it, and then the next VP (from the other party preferably) to continue it.

Not foolproof but I think it would work.

Japhy said:

The problem is it *was* Adams, and that he did try to assume a more active role, trying to act as a Speaker of the Senate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Adams' involvement in the Convention would be a good POD. A fair amount of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 would up being used so it wouldn't alter that too much. (Three branches, probably a fair amount of checks and balances, etc.)

Adams' presence, given his personality, could also cause the Founders to realize, too, that political parties are very likely to come about.