WI: Vice President Successfully Asserts Himself In the Senate

So, in OTL Adams tried and failed to be an actual President of the Senate. What if Washington had supported Adams in trying to direct and control the Senate? With the VP becoming a position of actual significance, what would that do for the VP slot and for the Senate in general?
 
If that were the case, I doubt that the 12th amendment would reasonably pass. If the VP had actual leverage and power in the senate, then it would be horribly undemocratic for that to be decided by the same vote as the vote for president (not that the early US was that democratic anyways, but you get the general idea). I could even see the eventual passage of an amendment by which the VP could be given the power of veto, perhaps subject to the president's approval or removal of the veto (or maybe override by a two-thirds vote in the senate alone?). It would definitely change the nature of strategic voting and everything about how we think about presidential elections. It would also be extremely strange to have a senate controlled by a VP from a different party (as chamber leadership roles like majority leaders and committees hadn't yet been established).
 
If that were the case, I doubt that the 12th amendment would reasonably pass. If the VP had actual leverage and power in the senate, then it would be horribly undemocratic for that to be decided by the same vote as the vote for president (not that the early US was that democratic anyways, but you get the general idea). I could even see the eventual passage of an amendment by which the VP could be given the power of veto, perhaps subject to the president's approval or removal of the veto (or maybe override by a two-thirds vote in the senate alone?). It would definitely change the nature of strategic voting and everything about how we think about presidential elections. It would also be extremely strange to have a senate controlled by a VP from a different party (as chamber leadership roles like majority leaders and committees hadn't yet been established).

If that’s the case then I presume we will have an amendment just for people to run separately for Vice President rather than having the runner up in the presidential race become VP
 

dcharleos

Donor
So, in OTL Adams tried and failed to be an actual President of the Senate. What if Washington had supported Adams in trying to direct and control the Senate? With the VP becoming a position of actual significance, what would that do for the VP slot and for the Senate in general?

Honestly, the plain meaning of "President of the Senate" implies an active role. Even if Adams was the kind of putz that let himself get pushed out of the job he got hired to do, it seems very weird to me that no other VP assumed the functions of the office implied by the Constitution.
 
Honestly, the plain meaning of "President of the Senate" implies an active role. Even if Adams was the kind of putz that let himself get pushed out of the job he got hired to do, it seems very weird to me that no other VP assumed the functions of the office implied by the Constitution.

Actually, no. The President of the Continental Congress was effectively powerless. Why do you think the House had a Speaker and not a President- the Speaker of the British Parliament actually had significant powers.
 
Actually, no. The President of the Continental Congress was effectively powerless. Why do you think the House had a Speaker and not a President- the Speaker of the British Parliament actually had significant powers.

But in terms of the actual constitution the places where a president is mentioned a president has actual power and authority
 
But in terms of the actual constitution the places where a president is mentioned a president has actual power and authority
President of a (non parliamentary) country- presides over executive branch, appoints all officers and employees in that branch, is main personality

President of a legislature- presides over a group of people who are powerful in their own right, who have no reason to accede to the presiding officer's dictates
 
I've read that some VPs quite actively presided over the Senate. In the early 19th century the Senate could be quite rowdy, and I read once that VP Martin Van Buren wore a brace of pistols when presiding over "the Bear Pit".
 
Presiding really only has a limited role. The real power is in deciding what legislation gets to the floor for a vote, and being able to limit amendments. The role of the presiding officer in the Senate is basically to enforce rules of order, they don't set the legislative agenda. In a parliamentary system, the presiding officer is a member of the ruling party and is involved in setting the legislative agenda etc.
 

dcharleos

Donor
Presiding really only has a limited role. The real power is in deciding what legislation gets to the floor for a vote, and being able to limit amendments.

That's true. But it's a logical assumption that the most powerful position in the Senate is the only one that's specifically mentioned in the Constitution. All of the other positions in the Constitution are important ones--Speakers and Presidents and Representatives and Senators and Judges and such--so it's not self-evident that this one particular office is a meaningless one.
 
We just need an early VP to want to be powerful and set a precedent

200_d.gif
 
The problem here is that I doubt very much Washington would have supported John Adams. It's not just that he & Adams were not particularly close; it was that GW(like most POTUS up to FDR)simply did not
think it was part of his job to tell, or even just advise, Congress on what to do. Besides which helping JA
would not have been easy in any case. JA, a contentious, even abrasive character(Benjamin Franklin, who worked with JA in Europe, once sharply characterized him as "always an honest Man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses")had many enemies in the Senate. One Senator- Ralph Izard of South Carolina- I think spoke for many when- in reference to JA's physical
stature- he bestowed a not-very flattering nickname on him: "His Rotundity"*. It thus seems quite improbable that JA could have led a group who held him in such low regard.

What about his immediate successors? Thomas Jefferson certainly possessed the tact JA so sorely lacked. As leader of the Republicans he was not- unlike many later VP's- a non-entity. But precisely be-
cause of this, most Federalists quite literally hated his guts. They would never have followed him in any-
thing(& when he was VP the Federalists controlled the Senate).Jefferson seems to have realized this; while in the Senate he mostly stayed silent, fleeing for Monticello every chance he got. As for Aaron Burr, being also a prominent Republican he could thus not count on Federalist support. But the Republicans- due of course to Burr's conduct in the 1800 Presidental election- mistrusted Burr & were no friends of his either. Besides, by then the office of VP had degenerated into the total insignificance that would characterize it until roughly the mid 20th century.

The only instance IOTL that I can recall when the VP actually tried to lead the Senate took place in 1975. Nelson Rockefeller, Ford's VP, in order to expedite a vote on a bill to liberalize the Senate's
anti filibuster rule, tried to cut off from speaking Alabama Democrat James B Allen. He justified his move
by declaring that under the Senate rules he had the discretion to ignore inquiries @ the start of a vote.
Nonetheless the backlash from the Senate was so severe Rockefeller was forced back down & apologize
(he was just "a servant of the Senate" he declared.**) If a Rockefeller can't lead the Senate, what hope is there for lesser mortals?

*- Franklin on Adams & "Rotundity" quoted in Alvin M Josephy, Jr., ON THE HILL: A HISTORY OF THE
AMERICAN CONGRESS, pp. 41 & 45 of the 1979, Touchstone edition.
**- Quoted in Jules Witcover, MARATHON: THE PURSUIT OF THE PRESIDENCY 1972-1976, p. 53 of the
1978, Signet paperback edition.
 
See this example for a way the office and relationship could have evolved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_Senate_of_France

The French Republic has no Vice President. In the case of a presidential vacancy, the President of the Senate, who is a presiding officer elected by the Senators, becomes acting President for a couple of months, until new presidential elections are held.

The 1787 framers were establishing a republic at a time when monarchies had been the norm for centuries and were blundering around in the dark.
 
Honestly, the plain meaning of "President of the Senate" implies an active role. Even if Adams was the kind of putz that let himself get pushed out of the job he got hired to do, it seems very weird to me that no other VP assumed the functions of the office implied by the Constitution.

I think the OP was going for "soft power." So not constitutional powers granted to the VP, but kind of like a deference or whatever. In our modern system, the VP is almost powerless, but he holds considerably sway over the president in practice. I think what the OP was going for was have tradition give him the same level of respect in the Senate, even one with opposition parties.
 
Another point of comparison would be state lieutenant governors. At least one, the Texas one, has influence separate from the governor but I don't think any preside over any state legislative chamber. A few are elected separately from the governor.
 
When he was inaugurated as vice president in 1925, Charles Dawes' address delivered a rather assertive (shall we way) address, in which he turned his considerable oratorical skills--and wrath--upon the rules of the Senate, in particular the filibuster. He all but demanded reform of the Senate's rules, in particular the cloture rule that mandated a 2/3 vote to end a filibuster. It didn't sit well with any of the senators--and didn't sit well with Calvin Coolidge, either, who had been blindsided. Long story short, Dawes' one man campaign to overhaul the Senate's methods of operation was a flop.
 
Top