You realize your post confirmes what I said, that the VP has no administrative role in the Senate and no voice in the Senate past breaking a tie right? He has no voice as 'President of The Senate' outside of that role.
And you do realize that it is not possible to prove something DIDN'T, only that something DID right? You can't prove a negative. Critical thinking 101, day 1.
It is incumbant on the one making the assretion to substantiate it. SO....you assertedd that Cheney was speaking as President of The Senate, substantiate please. I realize that will very difficult as speaking as President of The Senate isn't the role of VP past breaking ties but I do wait for how you will try and substantiate this until now unheard of act. You realize that the VP is in the Executive branch and that the Executive branch is what the term 'the administration' is reffering to. Unless there is a tie in the Senate at which point the 'United States'(the Exuctive branch) via the VP gets a voice among the States' will when a tie occers within the States representation in Congress (the Senate).
The House of Representative is the People's representation, the Senate is the State's representation and those make up Congress which is the legislative branch. The United States is represented by the Executive branch of which the VP is not only within, but sits in 2nd chair of, and only gets a voice when the States are tied. Then, and only then, does the executive get a voice in the Senate. This makes sense given the President gets to assert his influence via the veto.
Still waiting for those quotes BTW. Left of Obama.......Google and Youtube not bearing fruit?
I said only that Cheney was speaking in his constitutionally designated role as President of the Senate, and that he was NOT speaking for the administration.
Do you have something to back up your statement that he was speaking for the administration?
And you do realize that it is not possible to prove something DIDN'T, only that something DID right? You can't prove a negative. Critical thinking 101, day 1.
It is incumbant on the one making the assretion to substantiate it. SO....you assertedd that Cheney was speaking as President of The Senate, substantiate please. I realize that will very difficult as speaking as President of The Senate isn't the role of VP past breaking ties but I do wait for how you will try and substantiate this until now unheard of act. You realize that the VP is in the Executive branch and that the Executive branch is what the term 'the administration' is reffering to. Unless there is a tie in the Senate at which point the 'United States'(the Exuctive branch) via the VP gets a voice among the States' will when a tie occers within the States representation in Congress (the Senate).
The House of Representative is the People's representation, the Senate is the State's representation and those make up Congress which is the legislative branch. The United States is represented by the Executive branch of which the VP is not only within, but sits in 2nd chair of, and only gets a voice when the States are tied. Then, and only then, does the executive get a voice in the Senate. This makes sense given the President gets to assert his influence via the veto.
Still waiting for those quotes BTW. Left of Obama.......Google and Youtube not bearing fruit?