Would Vice President Sarah Palin actually belong in the Senate?

When Sarah Palin suggested that as president of the Senate, she could get in there and mix it up with the senators, the reaction was quick -- and most of it along lines suggesting she should take a quick course in government and the Constitution.

Wait a minute. Maybe she was on to something.

In an elegant (meaning short -- barely 440 words) Op-Ed in today's New York Times, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, tells us why, although Palin was "roundly mocked for her claim," the Republican vice presidential nominee was nonetheless "probably right."

And he manages to get in a few digs at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney too.

Here's the gist of his argument:

The vice president is really more of a legislative post than a job in the executive branch -- the office in the West Wing of the White House notwithstanding.

And as a member of the legislative branch, the vice president, in exercising executive power, "raises important constitutional questions related to the separation of powers."

Having wrapped that up, he says Congress should "pass a law to prohibit the vice president from exercising executive power."

He continues:

Extensive vice presidential involvement in the executive branch -- the role enjoyed by Dick Cheney and Al Gore -- is not only unconstitutional, but also a bad idea.

But that's something Cheney's critics have been saying for eight years.

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: Jim Watson / AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[Larry in NC]

Why would she even be interested in being Veep at this point in the game. Obviously she's intent on throwing John McCain under a bus to further her real ambition, POTUS in 2012. This is one opportunistic politican at work. Veep is small potatoes to her.

[chas holman]

Governer Palin has come of as one who intentionaly seeks more and more power. I am of the opinion she would stop at nothing short to infiltrate her own agenda into the Senate as much as possible.

Mrs Palin seems intentionaly downright dangerous to me.

http://soundclick.com./333maxwell

[cherstinane]

Name on politician who isn't "ambitious" to the point of doing whatever, whenever and however to further themselves. Sometimes they just hide it better to appease the public. They do it behind closed doors so people can't see their true colors. Politics is a dirty, ugly game... I don't care what color of politics you wear.

[JoeSixGunSixPackTheProAmericanPlumber]

Sarah Palin is a Marxist
Alaska: America's Socialist State

Sarah Palin's home state of Alaska is the MOST Socialist state in these United States, and she's proud of it!

Alaska has no income or sales tax!
That's because it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields.
First the state government takes it's hefty cut, then it redistributes the wealth, cutting a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state.
Sarah Palin was happy to increase this year’s check by $1200, bringing the per-person total to $3,269, helping her maintain her popularity as Governor.

I wonder how that's not "buying" votes?

Sarah Palin is proud of her states' collective wealth-redistribution scheme.
Sarah Palin said,
“We’re set up, unlike other states in the union,
where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources.
So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Right out of the Karl Marx play book!

[AJWells]

"Sarah Palin is a Marxist
Alaska: America's Socialist State"

Umm, the definition of socialism is that there IS Income and sales tax and IT is distributed to the "commonwealth"

The United States economic system is based on levies and taxation of imported goods, NOT taxation of the people.

Redistribution of income gotten from levies on oil etc. is pretty much the opposite of socialism.

[CC]

@AJWells
Socialism does not imply income tax (although some socialist systems employ it). The marks of socialism are state-owned business. If the state of Alaska distributes oil revenues, this fits. Even more so, the new Bush policy of buying interest in private banks.

To say the US economic system is based on taxation of imported goods (which account for less than a quarter of a percent of revenues seems bizzare. Do you mean prior to 1913? Certainly not now.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4985&type=0&sequence=5
Please see table 4-2 for the breakdown of revenue.