To those who believe that VP Harris can override a Republican Majority Leader...

[brooklynite]

Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as the president of the Senate and presides over the Senate's daily proceedings. In the absence of the vice president, the Senate's president pro tempore (and others designated by him) presides. As one of the Senate's constitutional officers, only the Vice President has the authority to cast a tie-breaking vote.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Vice_President.htm

Presides over the Senate. That means recognizes Senators to speak and calls for votes. It does not mean he/she gets to select what Bills will be brought up. That is a matter of Senate rules which are determined by the Senate Majority.

[FBaggins]

1. It doesn't even mean " recognizes Senators to speak and calls for votes"

Unless the majority is willing to allow that.

The entire theory is roughly as nutty as the one that says that Pence can control which electoral votes get counted in states that Trump thinks were invalid.

[SCantiGOP]

2. Another misconception:

Most people think that McConnell would be in line behind Speaker of the House to become POTUS if Prez and VP were gone. It would be President Pro Tem, which is Grassley.

[Demonaut]

3. thank god the rules were never bent when trump was in office...sarcasm

[Docreed2003]

4. While I agree with your point brooklynite, just to play devils advocate

Please point me to the part of the Constitution that says Jack crap about a "Senate Majority Leader".

[tritsofme]

5. Article I Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

[Docreed2003]

9. I mean specifically "Senate Majority Leader"

it's why I put it in quotes...

Like I said, I agree with brooklynite's point, just playing devils advocate since this idea is being promoted in a bunch of circles. For VP Harris to do what some are suggesting would be to rewrite the role of VP as we have known it in the entirety of the Republic.

[tritsofme]

16. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the position being mentioned in the Constitution?

When the document already empowers each chamber to set its own rules.

[Hoyt]

6. Cracks me up when people believing there is some secret "passage" that

no one has ever thought of, or discovered, before.

[dweller]

7. It's revealed in that Nicholas Cage movie

when it’s played backwards ...

✌🏻

[Hoyt]

10. Ah, yes. Remember the secrets in Beatles' songs played backwards.

[FSogol]

31. Wait! What's this switch!

[sheshe2]

8. I never saw people say that.

What I did read is if it is 50/50 (Georgia) Harris has the over riding vote. She could also call bills to the floor. I never saw people saying that she can over ride a MAJORITY leader, that is just silly.

[Docreed2003]

11. The idea is being pushed by some on the left

And Thom Hartmann has pushed this idea more than once in the past several weeks on his show, although I think wrongly. Suggesting that VP Harris should take on a role and authority that no other VP has ever done is ridiculous.

[sheshe2]

13. Thank you Docreed.

Thanks for clearing it up...Thom Hartman. Okay.

Happy almost New Year.

[Docreed2003]

15. Happy New Year to you and yours!!

[RGTIndy]

32. I think the idea is that

the Constitution doesn't define "presides" and no one has ever pushed the issue. But, the Constitution doesn't create a roll for Senate Majority Leader at all. And yes, the Senate can make its own rules, but those rules would still have to not violate any other part of the Constitution. For example, Mitch couldn't have a Senate rule that said "Black Senators can't vote". The right to make your own rules is clearly not absolute. So the argument is that "presides" has a broader meaning and any rule that curtails that Constitutional provisions broader interpretation is itself unconstitutional. I'm not buying this argument, or selling it, but I think that's the gist of it.

[MR. ELECTABLE]

12. If she can cast a tie-breaking vote, we will NOT have a republican majority...

If there are 50 republicans and 50 democrats, VP Harris' first vote will be the tie-breaker to make Charles Schumer the majority leader. If we lose either of the GA races, I am relatively sure that any need to cast a tie-breaker vote will not arise, since the last 4 years have proven that the republicans will vote in lock-step regardless of how "moderate" they pretend to be...

[Mr.Bill]

14. The question I have is

if the Senate is 50/50, who decides on committee chairmanships and committee memberships? Would Harris have a deciding role in that?

[tritsofme]

17. Committee memberships and compositions are set by the organizing resolution negotiated at the start

of the new session. As I recall in 2001, they agreed to have equal representation on committees with Republicans holding the gavels.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Because the VP was who then?

[MiniMe]

19. In 2001, it was Cheney

[LiberalFighter]

30. I knew that. Just wondering if the person I responded to knew.

[brush]

22. Dems will be in the majority if we win both seats in Ga., thus will hold the Majority Leader post.

Whoever they vote in.

[tritsofme]

23. Right...the question was regarding committee composition and chairs...

[brush]

24. The majority party selects the committee chairs and appoints their...

choices to the committees—as per usual. The minority party will hold the ranking member seat and will appoint its members to the committee, also as usual.

[tritsofme]

25. The composition of committees is subject to negotiation between the parties, and is reflected in the

organizing resolution. Larger majorities command a larger share of committee seats in negotiations, likewise for smaller ones. These negotiations are typically based on the precedent of partisan compositions from majorities of a similar size in the recent past.

The most recent 50-50 split was in 2001, as I mentioned, the negotiations yielded an even split in committee seats with Republicans holding the gavels, due to Cheney’s tie breaking vote for the majority. I would expect a similar arrangement in a 50-50 Senate in 2021.

[brush]

26. I posted the majority party, which would be the Dems if we win Georgia,...

would hold the chairperson's gavel. That's not in dispute and any different from before. As for committee composition, precedent will surely be followed as you point out. I would think however, that the majority party would have a slight advantage as per chairs or what's the advantage of holding the majority?

[tritsofme]

27. I never said anything differently. The only recent precedent is 2001, and committee membership was

split evenly. I would expect a similar split in 2021, with Democratic chairs.

You might find this CRS report on the 107th Congress interesting.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30881/4

[FBaggins]

28. The real answer is probably...

... Joe Manchin.

But I hope we find out.

[Tarc]

20. Indeed. This stuff is about as bad as the wingnuts and Pence

They think the VP has some magic ability to discard electoral voted when the counting begins.

[onenote]

21. Thank you. I've been explaining this for weeks, but some DUers just don't get it.

Biden was in the Senate for 36 years. He was VP -- and thus "President" of the Senate -- for eight, including two years in which the Republicans controlled the Senate.

Anyone who thinks that Biden is going to have Harris spend all her time hanging around the Senate -- particularly when all she could do is follow the rules set by the Senate -- needs to revisit the real world.

[Hortensis]

29. :) As you say. Even if we get both GA seats, Harris is going to be extremely busy

as Biden's "assistant president," with a full and heavy agenda, visiting the senate only for special ceremonies. I imagine she'd be able to use both proxies and virtual voting if she chose and never have to be there physically to break ties.