This point was raised by several - does Harris have to actively preside all the time to make this work?
No. She can re-delegate (and then un-delegate) to a chosen senator. That’s in graf 7 of article.
Why wasn’t it done before? Don’t underestimate the power of inertia.
No. She can re-delegate (and then un-delegate) to a chosen senator. That’s in graf 7 of article.
Why wasn’t it done before? Don’t underestimate the power of inertia.
https://twitter.com/jwhallin/status/1338829370257895424
Also, perhaps they just didn’t think of it. The Constitution’s clear that the VP is President of the Senate. The essence of being President (of anything) is to preside over it. And that’s exactly how it was done until 1937 (per official Senate history linked in the article).
I visualize @KamalaHarris taking gavel, recognizing 2 pre-arranged senators to move and second frozen House bills to the floor, then te-delegating to the Senate MINORITY leader to continue business. Mitch might then come hat in hand with a deal to get his presiding power back.
Or he might suck it up. Or he might sue. But as addressed in the article, that suit will fail. SCOTUS likely won’t even give it a hearing due to separation of powers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
