Sarah Palin is still unqualified by the way.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

I googled it and went straight to the cached web pages.

Article I, Section. 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Despite what Dick Cheney thinks, the Vice President is member of the executive branch.

This doesn’t mean that the VP hasn’t in the past, as the passages you quote suggest, presided more actively a century or so ago, but there’s nothing that suggests an involvement in legislation, which is prohibited by article 1 of the Constitution.

You can try to save this one. But she’s wa-a-a-aaay out on a limb, and not in a good way. I learned the role of the VP in middle school. Why didn’t she learn it after attending six different colleges?

- She’s a dedicated mom – As opposed to the feminist ideology that no mom is a good mom unless she is single and without the annoying support of any males

- She’s conservative – If she were a single mom of six children with all different fathers who was on welfare, she’d be the feminist’s choice for VP.

- She has faith-based morals – Some feminists may believe that you can love your husband (if you’re that weak), you can love your children (if you must)… but you definitely cross the line with feminists when you love God.

- She has a supportive husband. In fact, women shouldn’t marry at all! Women shouldn’t need men for anything other than to procreate, which now you can go to the sperm bank and not even have to involve yourself with interacting with the male species!

- She’s intelligent – Doesn’t it irk feminists the most when the pretty woman with the beautiful family and supportive husband is also smart? Rats! What do they do now? There’s no argument that can be made! Instead, like the women on The View, they sit on their sofas, cross their arms indignantly and stare at her up and down with jealous scowls on their faces.

- She’s pretty – The woman is beautiful. I know, it sounds petty, but it’s actually a reason feminists despise her.

Bottom line is that feminists should be fully in support of Palin, if for no other reason than the fact that she’s a female VP candidate, yet their narrowminded hate-filled doctrine of degradation towards men, the family unit, faith and morality get in the way of basic logic. Feminists are the epitome of hypocrisy.

http://forcedexile.com/2008/09/17/the-epitome-of-hypocrisy-why-feminists-hate-palin.aspx

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/09/15/why-feminists-hate-palin-why-gay-activists-hate-us/

Women are weapons-grade haters. Hillary Clinton knows it. Palin knows it too. When women get their hate on, they don’t just dislike, or find disfavor with, or sort of not really appreciate. They loathe — deeply, richly, sustainingly.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846832,00.html?imw=Y

Do feminists hate Palin because their idea of a woman in top office has to be man-hating and pro-choice.?

Best Answer – Chosen by Asker
Leave everything exactly the same about Sarah Palin except her abortion views, turn that R into a D, then make her Obama’s running mate — change nothing else at all — and she’s the savior of liberals and feminists everywhere.

She’s not hated for being an “idiot” or for not being experienced enough, blah, blah, blah. I get sick of hearing that intellectually dishonest cr*p. She’s hated only because she’s a pro-life Republican.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081012230941AAf8VW0

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

The framers providing only that he “shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided” (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.

The vice president’s other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates “in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,” so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.

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.

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.

Do you actually know what any of us had to say about Geraldine Ferraro 24 years ago?