Lieberman's Remarks: Special Comment by my 72-year-old friend

By GottaLaff

My impassioned 72-year-old Twitter pal, who goes by the name 42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about Joe Lieberman's recent comments about stripping people of their U.S. citizenship and more. I am more than happy to oblige.

But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:

Many of you may wonder why I chose to use the “ 72 year old friend” as the introduction to my Special Comments. I selected the moniker so readers could see that from my age and life experiences I give a different perspective to the issues of today.

Now for his Special Comment:

Lieberman’s Remarks

As an American, I am furious and greatly upset by the remarks made Tuesday by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, that an American citizen should automatically lose their citizenship if accused of participating in a terrorist attack against our country on behalf of another country.

Sen. Lieberman, you seem to have forgotten that in the 1930s Jewish citizens of Germany were stripped of their citizenship because the Nazis considered them enemies of the state. Why is what you are proposing any different from what Hitler and the Nazis did?

Sen. Lieberman, when sworn in as Senator, you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States; yet here you are willing to tear the basic fabric of the Constitution apart by your proposal. Our legal system was founded on the basis “innocent until proven guilty”, are you now proposing that it be like many other countries in the world “guilty until proven innocent”?

Sen. Lieberman by your actions, you are unknowingly giving aid and comfort to our enemies; they will see your proposal as our country is beginning to lose its moral values.

It is times like these, that our faith in the Constitution is tested, yet you and many conservatives in the country are willing to sacrifice the basic principles on which this country was founded, by trampling the Constitution.

Sen. Lieberman your remarks and recent remarks made by Senators McCain and Graham regarding the reading of Miranda Rights and Second Amendment Rights for those on the terrorists watch list boggles the mind.

What I see happening in this country, is a group of people wanting to take this country back to the 18th Century when the rights that many Americans currently enjoy didn’t exist.

I sincerely hope you have time to rethink your position and not try to present a bill to Congress based on your remarks.

Many thanks again for another thorough, relevant piece, 42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.

New RNC site: Obama v. Constitution, including ominous music!

By GottaLaff



You simply must link over to this ridiculous site just to hear the oooommminnous music:

If you run your mouse over the amendment in question it indicates an Obama judicial nominee and a decision that allegedly supports the claim [...]

“Please help the Republican Party stop President Obama’s judicial nominees from rewriting the Constitution. Donate today!” the site says, calling for contributions of up to $1,000.

And that's what it's really all about: Donations.

(click on image to enlarge)

Defacing the U.S. Constitution should be a real winner for them. Even better than the fake census forms!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gravely Old Pathetic party.

VIDEO- Countdown: Palin wants America to revert back to 1775

By GottaLaff

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This was one of my favorite segments last night, and not because Markos wore a color coordinated outfit. That was just a bonus.

See, Preachy McSoWrong? Even before video, there were these things called-- say it with me-- "doc-u-ments". Try reading the Constitution. Oh wait. She doesn't read.

Yoo asked for it

By GottaLaff

Yoo hooooo!

As reports circulate that the Justice Department has softened its criticism of attorney John Yoo for memos approving the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects, several prominent lawyers are urging a federal appeals court in San Francisco to hold Yoo accountable.

They have submitted arguments opposing dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit that accuses the former Justice Department attorney of providing a legal cover for torture. The suit covers much of the same ground as the department's ethics investigation of Yoo. [...]

Yoo says he always gave good-faith legal advice and denies authorizing torture. Those claims could be tested in a San Francisco federal court, however, unless Yoo can persuade a court to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit. [...]

Yoo has appealed, saying the suit would interfere with presidential war-making authority. The Obama administration has taken his side, arguing that courts should not meddle in questions of national security.

But in filings over the last 10 days, groups of constitutional law professors, legal ethics scholars and former government attorneys urged the court to keep Padilla's suit alive.

They argue that this is not a dispute over legal advice, as Yoo contends, but the case of a lawyer who allegedly stepped out of his role to take part in planning detention and interrogation policies, and then devised legal opinions to justify those policies.

And who are some of these very principled, very learned, very ethical lawyers who support the novel concept of upholding the-- What's it called again? Oh yeah-- U.S. Constitution? Here's who:

Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at UC Irvine; Alan Morrison, an assistant law dean at George Washington and former director of Public Citizen Litigation Group; and Norman Dorsen of New York University, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also, Stanford's Deborah Rhode and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, not to mention Bruce Fein, special assistant to the director of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in President Ronald Reagan's administration.

They stressed the importance of applying ethical standards to lawyers who advise the president on constitutional issues.

There is much more here. (h/t: VNDNBRG)

And here:

*****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Underwear bomber talking again... without waterboarding

By GottaLaff

Well, well, Alice Ghostley, er, Susan Collins... guess who's opening his big yap again? And he didn't even have to be waterboarded!

Accused Christmas Day bomber Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab has started talking federal agents again, intelligence officials told a congressional panel Tuesday, even though he has been read his Miranda rights.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if Abdulmutallab’s interrogation was ongoing and if federal investigators were receiving new information from him.

“Yes,” Mueller replied.

What? Why... why... that's... constitutional!:

The revelation could deflate recent Republican attacks against the Obama administration’s decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights after he was treated for the burns he suffered when he tried to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 243 on Christmas Day.

So much for Rushpublic talking points.

"Hatch just wants to sink it, whether it's unconstitutional or not"

By GottaLaff

Here's another L.A. Times letter to the editor that I found interesting, this time on the health care mandate:

Hatch and Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff write: "The mandate that individuals obtain health insurance . . . would be the first time in American history that Congress has required all Americans to purchase a particular good or service."

That's incorrect. We are already forced by the federal (and state) government to buy goods or services we might not desire. The feds require me to buy Social Security insurance; the state requires me to buy disability insurance.

The feds can coerce states into action when the general public welfare is served. The federal government can withhold educational funding to states that don't implement the No Child Left Behind Act. In the 1970s, it threatened to withhold highway funds to states that didn't implement the 55 mph speed limit.

Amar makes sense: The healthcare bill is constitutional.

But that really doesn't matter. Hatch just wants to sink it, whether it's unconstitutional or not.

He sure got that last part right.

Challenge to health bill's constitutionality fails, 39-60

By GottaLaff

I know this is after the fact (I was gone most of the day), but I liked The Hill's title and couldn't resist. So, for the record:

A challenge to the Senate health bill's constitutionality failed on Wednesday afternoon in a party-line vote.

I posted about tomorrow's historic vote here.

"A message to all members of Team Sarah: A Declaration of Freedom"

By GottaLaff

Team Sarah is such a caution. Every time they come around, I have to reach for one of my many scented hankies to dab away tears of laughter.

Now they've gone and sent an e-mail to one of our readers with the subject line "declaration of freedom", and, well, where's my favorite lavender-scented kerchief? Although I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry:

From: Team Sarah <mail@teamsarah.org>
Reply-To: <do-not-reply@teamsarah.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:44:01 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: A Declaration of Freedom

Hello Team!

Our own Marjorie Danennfelser, (Co-founder of Team Sarah) as well as more than 150 other leaders and clergy, has signed what is called “The Manhattan Declaration”, a Declaration that is best summed up in the last paragraph:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's." If you want to sign your name to this declaration here is the link [...]

God Bless, Bill Collier

Hello Team! Wow! It's exclamation point time! And guess what! The suggestions in your e-mail! Unconstitutional!

The U.S. Constitution says that abortion is legal! And that everyone is equal under the law! Yes, that's right! The law! That's the binding custom and practice that governs us and keeps us in line so we don't do bad things! Like kill people! And incite violence!

Guess what else! God didn't write the U.S. Constitution! Men did! Men we call our founding fathers! For a reason!

And if you are anti anti-life acts, don't forget about capitol punishment! And war! And assassinating physicians who legally perform abortions! Now that's immoral!

So immoral it deserves an extra !

Thank you!

Now go back to that hole of an insane asylum you call Team Sarah and read the Constitution! Then obey it! Or leave!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

H/t: Babzter

Andrew Sullivan: Why Cheney is afraid to close Gitmo

By GottaLaff

Via Greg Sargent, a great excerpt from Sully:

[H]ere’s Andrew Sullivan on why the Cheney clan is waging a death struggle against transfering Gitmo detainees to U.S. soil:

What Cheney fears, I suspect, is that Gitmo will be shut down, that history will record it as the lowest point in US human rights ever, that the Cheney family will be tarred as the brand that destroyed America’s moral standing, and that Dick Cheney will become one of the darkest figures in modern American history.

I take issue with that. Dickless McHeartStent already is one of the darkest figures in modern American history.

I'll venture to say that he's worried that when Gitmo is shut down and the trials (real ones, not military commissions) get underway, the onion layers will be peeled back and more crimes will be revealed.

Overall, both Gitmo and Cheney were major disasters and harmful to our country's standing. And when you think about it, both inflicted torture on people, whether in that godawful prison or in homes all over America.

VIDEO- Jonathan Turley: 9/11 trial critics show "crisis of faith" in the Constitution

By GottaLaff

Turley said exactly what needed to be said. The hysterical critics of using our own criminal court system to try, you know, criminals are showing a disturbing "crisis of faith in our Constitution":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

AUDIO- Nancy Pelosi to conservative reporter: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

By GottaLaff

Nance is running out of patience, as are many of the rest of us. The question from CNSNews was, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

At that point, I would have offered CNSNews Guy a free Colorado balloon ride.

Pressed on the issue by a reporter from a conservative website, Pelosi shot back: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

As background, some conservatives claim that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to demand that individuals purchase health insurance.

Who has time or patience for stupid questions like this? Maybe she should start carrying around a slew of those little Senator Byrd-pocket-U.S. Constitutions to hand out to these "reporters" just prior to walking away while shaking her head slowly.

VIDEO- McCain: "I'm sure that President Obama respects the Constitution"

By GottaLaff

Earlier, I posted about John Sidney McCain's town hall meeting, and his response to a woman challenging President Obama's respect for the Constitution. Now we have the video.

That was nice.

However, a few minutes later, another woman exclaimed that for the first time, she was concerned about her FREEDOM (her emphasis). She got some hefty applause for that. She went on to say how worried she was about Congress "bypassing the Constitution". McCain failed to ask her who exactly is taking which FREEDOM away from her.

He also forgot to ask her why, after what BushCo did to this country, she was only just becoming fearful now.

VIDEO- Michele Bachmann: Health Care Reform Is Unconstitutional

By GottaLaff



Hey kids! It's insane o'clock p.m. and guess who's cuckooing!

Oh please let her think god is telling her to run for president, pleaseohpleaseohplease:

There is nothing in any of the health care bills under consideration which resembles a “national takeover of health care.” [...] Like other insurers, the public option would collect premiums from people who choose to buy into it, and then spend those premiums to insure these participants.

Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.” Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the “general welfare.”

[...]

It’s important to note just how radical Bachmann’s theory of the Constitution is. If Congress does not have the power to create a modest public option which competes with private health plans in the marketplace, then it certainly does not have the authority to create Medicare. Similarly, Congress’ power to spend money to benefit the general welfare is the basis for Social Security, federal education funding, Medicaid, and veterans benefits such as the VA health system and the GI Bill. All of these programs would cease to exist in Michele Bachmann’s America.

Bachmann/Taitz 2012!

BushCo v. The Constitution: Guess who debated using G.I.’s in U.S. to arrest people

By GottaLaff

I just heard Rachel Maddow mention this, so I had to share. She believes that this story is payback for Cheney's recent smackdown of Bush for the Scooter Libby non-pardon, and that it will be a big deal. And since we're into big deals here at TPC:

Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

How sick is it that we consider that kind of BushCo thinking "par for the course"?

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

Probably because he couldn't pronounce Lackawanna.

A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests would be nearly unprecedented in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

As if that would stop His Dickiness.

The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

I seem to remember posting about this possibility back when. Nobody seemed to notice. But you know what they say: Good things come to those who wait.

In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.

That would be the same Justice Department that wrote up those spiffy little torture memos.

“The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” the memorandum said.

Of course it did, because that's what Boy Georgie's DoJ deemed. The United Deem of America. Deem and Deemer?

The memorandum — written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty — was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked the department about a president’s authority to use the military to combat terrorist activities in the United States.

Ding!

The memorandum was declassified in March. But the White House debate about the Lackawanna group is the first evidence that top American officials, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, actually considered using the document to justify deploying the military into an American town to make arrests. [...]

Former officials in the administration said this debate was not as bitter as others during Mr. Bush’s first term. The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.

See how they could all get along when they put their minds to it?

Still, at least one high-level meeting was convened to debate the issue, at which several top Bush aides argued firmly against the proposal to use the military, advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials.

Reminder: Read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer. Learn all about Addington, His Dickiness, and their band of merry despots.

Among those in opposition were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. [...]

Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, said an American president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

That, of course, was when His Dickiness was just a young boy.

Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said. Richard B. Myers, a retired general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he was unaware of the discussion. [...]

Despite this guidance, some Bush aides bristled at the prospect of troops descending on an American suburb to arrest terrorism suspects.

“What would it look like to have the American military go into an American town and knock on people’s door?” said a second former official in the debate.

Um, like Iraq?

Chief James L. Michel of the Lackawanna police agreed. “If we had tanks rolling down the streets of our city,” Chief Michel said, “we would have had pandemonium down here.”

Um, like Iraq?

VIDEO-- Countdown: The Unitary Executive

By GottaLaff

In case you missed this story, just watch:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Lawyers told President Bush that he could detain anyone in the country without a warrant or order a military raid on them if they were terrorists.

I'd like to amend that MSNBC blurb. It should read "suspected terrorists" or "deemed as" terrorists. Or, "anyone Bush wanted to haul in against their will without regard to the U.S. Constitution." Prosecutions are in order. Yes, I realize that is stating the obvious.

Every day more evidence is revealed, and every day it becomes more and more obvious (like it wasn't already?) that these thugs are the ones who belong in prison.

Fox & Friends hosts, Beck cite fictional congressional testimony by 24's "Jack Bauer" in defense of torture

Anyone else notice that the talking heads on MSNBC keep on citing Cheney's opinion on closing Gitmo as if it has any worth? Surprising.

Obama to reverse Bush executive orders

By GottaLaff

How do you spell relief? O-B-A-M-A. I previously posted about the President-elect's intention to close Gitmo. Here's more about his efforts to eradicate a few of Georgie's smelliest, most vile stains, such as those pesky signing statements:

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies, sources close to his transition said, in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said he’s been informed that President Obama will support his proposed legislation to make public some opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the Bush Administration's most sweeping claims of executive power. Obama also has promised to limit President Bush's practice of using "signing statements" to amend legislation.

Remember those pundits who wondered aloud if P.E. Obama would be able to resist taking advantage of some of that excess power that Bush bestowed upon himself? There's their answer.

Obama aides didn't respond to requests for more detail, but the president-elect campaigned against what he called Bush’s abuse of executive authority.

"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser in 2007.

I.... I'm... experiencing something new. Something... strange. I... I... I feel my lungs taking in air. I'm... starting to breathe again.

Obama also defended a president’s right to use signing statements to clarify law, but he criticized Bush’s “clear abuse of this prerogative” to undermine laws he didn’t like.

"He is definitely going to handle signing statements in a very different fashion than Bush," said Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "He'll issue some, no doubt, but he'll do it on a limited basis, and in a much more constrained way - he won't be saying, 'I refuse to execute this portion of the law,' for example."

The piece goes on to list John Podesta, Eric Holder, and Dawn Johnsen as choices that are giving a lot of people, yours truly included, a reason to live again.

"I was pleasantly surprised that Obama seems to have picked a head of the Office of Legal Counsel who is willing to tie his hands," said Gene Healy, a vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute.

According to the article, Obama would most likely use his executive powers for domestic matters, like the economy:

"On the one hand, he's dialing back some of the national security powers that have been controversial over the last eight years," said Cato's Healy. "On the other hand, he seems very comfortable redesigning the economy by executive fiat."

I can't help but believe that someone as knowledgeable of the, you know, Constitution, would also make it a priority to glue it back together rather than continue to stomp all over what's left of its tattered little remnants.

Hypocrite watch: Bush v. U.S.A.

By GottaLaff

Through the looking glass:

President Bush, urging the Republican Party to become more “open-minded,” said the GOP is down but not out after getting “whipped” in 2008.

Bush, in a wide-ranging interview on “Fox News Sunday,” argued that the party would recover, just as it had following other setbacks. However, he cautioned Republicans that they must become more open-minded.

“It’s very important for our party not to narrow its focus, not to become so inward looking that we drive people away from a philosophy that is compassionate and decent,” Bush said, adding, “We shouldn’t have litmus tests as to whether or not you can be a Republican.”

How nostalgic. Remember when he was a compassionate conservative? Neither do I.

"We’ve got to be a party for a better future and for hope.”

Did some washed-up excuse for a president just steal a line from a far superior, future president? Why yes. Yes he did:

When asked what he would do after leaving office, the president said he wants to write a book, possibly on the toughest decisions he had to make while in the White House.

May I make a suggestion? Learn how to read first. Moving on...

Bush stressed that his own presidency was defined by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Criticized often for extending his presidential powers to execute the war on terrorism, Bush said that the constitution remained intact.

He is referring, of course, to that one little remnant of aging parchment that he saved and framed for posterity. The rest of the document was shredded by BushCo years ago.*

He also defended the often criticized interrogation techniques used to get information from military detainees and terrorism suspects, which have been described by critics as torture.

“I firmly reject the word torture,” said Bush. “Everything this administration did had a legal basis.”

See Constitution reference* above. And blog title.

Pressure Mounts to Investigate Bush Officials

By GottaLaff

Investigating BushCo is one of the most important things that Obama can do, as far as I'm concerned. It's about setting precedent, upholding the law, and repairing our shredded Constitution:

The pressure is ratcheting up on President-elect Barack Obama to do something as soon as he takes office about the Bush administration’s years of law-breaking.

The lawyer and writer Scott Horton, in an excellent feature in the December issue of Harper’s, lays out the Obama administration’s options. Horton points out that there is a long litany of potential crimes the new administration could go after -– from using the Justice Dept. for political purposes to issuing no-bid military contracts to corrupt companies.

But the most obvious crime that’s prime for prosecution is officially sanctioned torture.

Advocates like Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, have harsh words for former Clinton Justice Dept. officials like Robert Litt, now advising Obama not to prosecute Bush officials and risk appearing vindictive and divisive. [...]

As I wrote earlier, lots of others have been offering the same sort of advice. Meanwhile, some law professors, like George Washington’s Jonathan Turley, who even supported the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, have made a persuasive argument that we can’t tolerate law-breaking by public officials.

But I think Horton, who’s a master of the law and history on this subject, may have the best answer: a commission created by the president that would investigate what happened and recommend prosecution if the facts warrant it. The commission should be nonpartisan –- made up of career prosecutors, lawyers and assistants, rather than political officials and operatives like the 9-11 commission, which lost credibility when its conclusions were watered down and subsequently attacked from all sides. [...]

If the new president authorized and supported it, the commission’s recommendations would be far harder to ignore than were, say, those of the 9-11 commission. If prosecution is ultimately warranted, the president would be under considerable pressure to follow through.

What’s more, it would look like an impartial administration of justice. Not like a new administration launching a retributive, divisive and partisan attack.

Will Obama go for it?

VIDEO-- IWRC* Palin: The Vice President Is ‘In Charge Of The U.S. Senate’

By GottaLaff



Yep. IWRC*'s ready to step right in, what with her vast knowledge of how the government works and all:

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sat for an interview with KUSA, an NBC affiliate in Colorado. In response to a question sent to the network by a third grader at a local elementary school about what the Vice President does, Palin erroneously argued that the Vice President is “in charge of the United States Senate". [...]

[She] herself asked this very question on national television in July. Apparently, she still hasn’t learned the correct answer.

Article I of the Constitution establishes an exceptionally limited role for the Vice President — giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is “equally divided”:

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

Moreover, the U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of Vice Presidents has been to preside over the Senate “only on ceremonial occasions.” ThinkProgress contacted Senior Assistant Paliamentarian Peter Robinson, who also disputed Palin’s characterization of the Vice President’s role:

In modern practice the Vice President doesn’t really control the Senate. … If anyone has a responsibility to try to govern the Senate, it’s the responsibility of the two leaders.

Maybe she meant she'd only be in charge of the pro-American Senators.

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"