Sarah Palin indicated during last week’s debate that she agreed with Dick Cheney’s (in photo) “unitary executive” theory of the vice presidency. “We have a lot of flexibility in there” under the Constitution, she said, adding that she was “thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also, if that vice president so chose to exert it.” But as a New York Times editorial noted: “The Constitution does not state or imply any flexibility in the office of vice president. It gives the vice president no legislative responsibilities other than casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when needed and no executive powers at all. The vice president’s constitutional role is to be ready to serve if the president dies or becomes incapacitated.”
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
-
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Open thread 7/4
- Regular on Open thread 7/4
- Raptor on Open thread 7/4
- Heckler on Open thread 7/4
- satatom on Open thread 7/4
- Raptor on Open thread 7/4
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 7/4
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 7/4
- Raptor on Open thread 7/4
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 7/4
68 Comments
Biden was correct: Cheney has been the most dangerous man we have had as a vice-president. He has consistently disregarded the Constitution in favor of implementing his own agenda. This has been, in my opinion, the most corrupt administration, in terms of the constitution, than any former administration. And moose gal wants to perpetuate it. It just goes to show the republicans have little, if any, respect for the Constitution of the United States.
If she could be taken seriously, she’s a tyrant-in- waiting.
Cheney’s power was based on Shrub’s incompetence.
George WMD Bush was a trained monkey who had no other ideas than what was presented to him and the Big Dick was the gate-keeper.
It’s all an act, every ounce of it.
Have you seen any press conferences with Bush2 as Governor? It’s night and day from a press conference today.
But he is/was meant to be a “good ol’ boy” as opposed to a “Political Insider/New England Elitist”, nothing more (he’s got a Hollywood ranch set down there in Tejas, but he’s scared of horses!).
Yeah, he had no ideas, but he wasn’t supposed to.
You actually think this is real?
The New York Times assessment is correct.
Sarah Palin? SHE is ambitious.
The one GOOD thing for John McCain when he loses?
He won’t have to spend the next four years watching his back and holding Sarah Palin’s leash.
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 8, 2008 at 6:30 am | Permalink
Cheney’s power was based on Shrub’s incompetence.
George WMD Bush was a trained monkey who had no other ideas than what was presented to him and the Big Dick was the gate-keeper.
= == = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = ==
Who is going to be Obama’s “gate-keeper”? Since his incompetence is manyfold that of George Bush, and he is only on the verge of being elected because some big people want him in there, there will have to be a handler to make sure he only does the bidding of those who put him there.
I wonder if all these supporters of the ‘unitary executive’ would support President Obama and VP Biden if THEY tried to exercise such power. Especially ’signing statements’ indicating that the executive does not have to obey laws.
Looks like palin will never get the chance to put her Unitary presidency into play.
“CNN’s national poll of debate watchers found that 54 percent said Obama did the best job, compared to 30 percent who said McCain performed better. While 51 percent of those polled said they had a favorable opinion of McCain, unchanged from before the debate started, 64 percent said they had a favorable opinion of Obama, up 4 percentage points from before the debate.
By more than a 2-1 margin, 65 percent to 28 percent, more people said they found Obama more likable than McCain during the debate, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey.
On the question of who won the debate, a CBS News/Knowledge Networks poll of uncommitted voters found a similar result. Forty percent said Obama won, 26 percent said McCain won, and 34 percent thought it was a tie.
““The Constitution does not state or imply any flexibility in the office of vice president.”
Why wasn’t the constitution an issue when Vice President (excuse me First Lady) Hillary tried to ram healthcare reform down our throats when she was in office?
(”in office” is a factual statement. She claimed eight years of experience from her time in the White House. Liberals accepted that. Therefore my statement is true.)
American_Way
Posted October 8, 2008 at 11:09 am | Permalink
Why wasn’t the constitution an issue when Vice President (excuse me First Lady) Hillary tried to ram healthcare reform down our throats when she was in office?
__________________________________________________
Amway, why do you think Hillary’s healthcare reform would rise to the level of a constitutional issue?
XXX, “We have a lot of flexibility in there” under the Constitution”
Apparently that is the issue, right? A very limited role for the VP which means he (she) sits on her duff being paid to only come out to break a tie.
So much so, the first lady has more power to formulate legislation than the elected constitutional VP….
“American_Way
Posted October 8, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink
XXX, “We have a lot of flexibility in there” under the Constitution”
Apparently that is the issue, right? A very limited role for the VP which means he (she) sits on her duff being paid to only come out to break a tie.
So much so, the first lady has more power to formulate legislation than the elected constitutional VP…”
Apparantly AmWay has some issues with Hillary that (s)he is projecting here.
Does she remind you of your mother? Why don’t you lie on the couch and talk about it….
“Apparently that is the issue, right? A very limited role for the VP which means he (she) sits on her duff being paid to only come out to break a tie”
That would give her time to take some history and civics courses, bone up on the constitution, foreign relations, and the economy! You know, just in case Mccain doesn’t get to complete the ‘Bucket List’.
“just in case Mccain doesn’t get to complete the ‘Bucket List’.”
Now, that is funny.
It’s going to be interesting to see how these Republicans act when they finally realize that all those executive orders that Bush and Cheney wrote for themselves will now be available to Obama and Biden.
I wonder how long before these Republicans start crying about the Constitution being shredded by those nasty Democrats?
“mom
Posted October 8, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
It’s going to be interesting to see how these Republicans act when they finally realize that all those executive orders that Bush and Cheney wrote for themselves will now be available to Obama and Biden. ”
Oh there will be fun to had with that.
Well sure the Unitary theorey is off base, which is why palin embraces it, it’s one of those ‘Mavericky’ things she likes to do.
“In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection”
From Wiki-
While George seems to have increased the pace, seems Clinton engaged in the practice of signing statements as well. WIll Obama increase the pace even more?
or will McCain increase the pace even more?
or will Nader increase the pace even more?
Your point? Neither McCain nor Nader will be President.
My point. THe hands of both major political parties are filthy. . Take off the partisan blinders and see.
FOr the record, how many of the liberals, progressives, or Democrats, excercised their “outrage” at Clinton circumventing the law with his signing statements?
The knife cuts both ways. A Pox on both their houses.
Wasn’t it the great God Al Gore that said there was
“no controlling authority”
Sigh. . . lj, if you take a look at Clinton’s signing statements, while he did occasionally raise constitutional questions, in no instance did he express an intention to defy or ignore the law.
Bush did that repeatedly. He would not veto anything. He would just sign the bill, then quietly declare what he was going to do anyway.
You needn’t take my word for it. If you actually look into the matter (there’s been a major amount of ink on the subject), you will find I am correct.
Anyway, I would suggest doing so before you blithely claim a “pox on both their houses.”
By the way, you know who first came up with the idea of signing statements? It was a Reagan administration lawyer by the name of Samuel Alito.
P.S. If you really think it’s a “partisan” issue, then you haven’t been paying attention to the Eagle editorial board endorsements.
“you haven’t been paying attention to the Eagle editorial board endorsements.”
You are right in that respect. I could care less who the Eagle editorial board endorses.
“By the way, you know who first came up with the idea of signing statements? It was a Reagan administration lawyer by the name of Samuel Alito.”
BFD. I still don;t support it. I don;t care who came up with it.
“Anyway, I would suggest doing so before you blithely claim a “pox on both their houses.” ”
Why? I cand spend a little time on the net and find plenty of dirt on both major parties, their leaders, and their partisan members. Neither party gives a shirt about you or me, they care only about perpetuating their power. You and I are only considered pawns by both houses in their quest for power.
“
Update on OPbama’s posiiton
“McCain’s proposal to spend $300 billion in federal funds to buy distressed mortgages was a highlight of Tuesday’s presidential debate, and it seemed to catch Obama off guard. At first, Obama’s campaign said he had made similar proposals and there was nothing new in McCain’s remarks.
But after McCain aides offered more details Wednesday, Obama’s campaign shifted gears.
The plan would cause the government “to massively overpay for mortgages in a plan that would guarantee taxpayers lose money, and put them at risk of losing even more if home values don’t recover,” Obama economic adviser Jason Furman said in a statement. “The biggest beneficiaries of this plan will be the same financial institutions that got us into this mess, some of whom even committed fraud.”
The statement did not detail why the plan would fail. ”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93MH2F00&show_article=1
Sorry, wrong thread
Sorry, wrong thread
You and I are only considered pawns by both houses in their quest for power.
Then perhaps you should be little less apathetic when that power is expanded, exercised in secret, and privatized.
If you really believe the critics of the Unitary Executive are going to give Obama or any other president a free pass, you haven’t been paying attention.
It’s too easy (and lazy) to say “they’re all crooks!” and tune out, but you do so at your own peril.
“It’s too easy (and lazy) to say “they’re all crooks!” and tune out, but you do so at your own peril.”
Not my intent at all, and where have I ever indicated such a position? They may be all crooks, but they need to be exposed at every turn.That includes the crooks from both parties. Far too often, it is a “they are bad, we are good” blind eye that is expressed. By candidates, by pundits, and by the inhabitants on this blog.
I think signing statements are beautiful. For years a Congressman, maybe even Ron Paul, has introduced legislation that would require that all Bills introduced into the House of Representatives must cite the specific clause in the Constitution that allows such legislation before it can be considered. Regardless of who has been in control of the House it has never even been given so much as a committee hearing. If the Legislative branch does not want to abide by the Constitution, then why should the Executive?
” that would require that all Bills introduced into the House of Representatives must cite the specific clause in the Constitution that allows such legislation before it can be considered.”
Good idea, but I think many already do. By generically citing commerce clause
“Regardless of who has been in control of the House it has never even been given so much as a committee hearing. ”
Why would that surprise anyone.
“If the Legislative branch does not want to abide by the Constitution, then why should the Executive?”
Because it’s their damn job, regardless of whatever the “other guy” does.
We should all thank the dems for not allowing bush and the Repubs to privatize S.S.!
“But as a New York Times editorial noted: “The Constitution”
Since when did the NYT believe in anything in the Constitution?
Barack Obama and “The Butcher of Kenya”
On October 5th, a chilling video exposing the real Barack Obama and his allegiance to Raila Odinga
http://contributors.blogsome.com/200…cher-of-kenya/
“Kandisue” –
I clicked your link.
I got:
“Page Does Not Exist. “
Are you hallucinating again?
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
“Kandisue” –
I clicked your link.
I got:
“Page Does Not Exist. “
Are you hallucinating again?
_________________________________________
Try this one obama zombie
http://contributors.blogsome.com/2008/10/07/barack-obama-and-the-butcher-of-kenya/
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
“Kandisue” –
I clicked your link.
I got:
“Page Does Not Exist. “
Are you hallucinating again?
————————————————–
Don’t you means still instead of again?
Looks like Kandisue is have some rather radical PMS moments…. Go take a pill, Kandi, and go to bed!!!
Phillip
Biden SCREWED UP on this one.
Biden completely confused Article numbers and Section numbers.
There is no way around it, Joe Biden, who SITS on the Judiciary Committee, lectured the nation on the Constition, and HE was WRONG!
By the way, Phillip, YOU are wrong too! The VP has the power to RUN the Senate, if the VP chooses to do so. Majority rule, and filibuster rules would still apply, but the gavel BELONGS to the VP, whenever the VP wants the Gavel!:
“Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
The New York Times is wrong.
Phillip is wrong.
Biden is wrong.
If the majority party refuses to allow a bill to come forward, or abuses its power, the VP CAN step in and take over as President of the Senate.
Of course, the power would only allow the VP to force votes or correct any unfairness from the Senate Majority Leader.
The power does exist. The threat to use this power can be helpful.
Check out those extra dimensions…. LOL
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
Maybe where Dick Cheney is hiding with his own personally re-written copy of his own personal Constitution….
As USUAL, Franklin nit picks words, and attempts to misdirect the topic…
Phillip wont like that much!! LOL
hang in there Franklin, the law of averages says you have to get ONE thing right SOME day…. This just isnt that day!!
DumbAss!!
Franklin, name ONE VP in the last 100 years who has actually served as President of the Senate… just ONE…. I certainly cant find one in the past 59 years….
Can you name ONE VP who has actually voted to break a TIE in a Senate vote???
Good luck!!
Chas the fake preacher obviously can’t read.
The TOPIC of the thread is about the power of the VP.
The Constitution clearly does NOT say that the VP is to be trotted into the Senate only to break ties, and has no other duty.
I am correct on this one.
Biden is wrong.
Phillip is wrong.
The NYT is wrong.
Chas is wrong.
Google “Paul Rosell”
Anybody ever actually READ these words… and I mean READ them carefully???
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years,
and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States,
and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.(1*)
(1*) Does that really make any sense???
Google “Paul Rosell”+”CBS”
econ posted,
“The Constitution clearly does NOT say that the VP is to be trotted into the Senate only to break ties, and has no other duty.”
———–
So just trot VP Cheney into the Senate, and let him run it full-time.
——-
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.”
Chas
You really should do some research before you make such rash statements.
“The Tiebreaker that Stopped the Senate
One of the perks of being vice-president, besides getting automatic speculation for a future presidential run, is getting to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. It doesn’t come up much (only 12 times since 1991), but when it does, it’s a big deal and can tip the legislature in the president’s favor. But no tiebreaker was as big, or as interesting, as the one in March, 1881. New Republican president James Garfield had put up a new slate of nominees for committee chairmen, but the Senate ended up in a 37-37 deadlock. So it fell to VP Chester Arthur, who went with the president and really peeved the Democrats. They tried to strike a bargain, then refused to continue to vote. For the next two months, they would walk out whenever the Republicans tried to get the vote going, Later, two Republican senators resigned in protest of Garfield’s appointment of a New York federal post, giving the Democrats a two-vote majority in the Senate. Ever willing to negotiate, though, the two parties decided to just table the staffing issue for the term, ending the bitterness from Arthur’s tiebreaking vote.”
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/8926
“Frankln” aka Paul F Rosell is a dead duck here.
I know how he fights. I ALSO know where he lives. It’s not that hard. His name is in the phone book.
FRANKLIN…. YOU NEED TO LEARN BASIC ENGLISH…. I SAID VERY EXPLICITLY, NAME ONE VP WHO HAS SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE IN THE PAST 100 YEARS…. I BELIEVE 1881 IS A BIT OF A STRETCH, EVEN FOR A PENCIL NECK GEEK LIKE YOU!!
READ FRANKLIN….
NOW…. WHEN WERE THOSE 12 VOTES OF A VP SINCE 1991???
AND NAME ONE VP WHO ACTUALLY FUNCTIONED AS SENATE PRESIDENT IN THE PAST 100 YEARS!!
BJ
Actually, you are getting smarter.
You are more careful about your libel and slander.
Of some of the stuff on the Internet, about me?
I was NEVER charged with a crime.
I was NEVER “sentenced” as a civil court judge has NO authority to pass sentences for jail time, only contempt of court.
You are a worm.
You know full well that I defeated Judge Patrick Kelly, in higher courts.
You know that this was NEVER a criminal matter.
You know full well that I have no criminal record, whatsoever.
You know full well that I served for several years on the Wichita Traffic Commission and as Chief Deputy Sedgwick County Clerk and that none of this came up, at that time, because every responsible journalist in the area knows that the charges were and are false.
Try again, you coward.
BJ
Actually, you are getting smarter.
You are more careful about your libel and slander.
Of some of the stuff on the Internet, about me?
I was NEVER charged with a crime.
I was NEVER “sentenced” as a civil court judge has NO authority to pass sentences for jail time, only contempt of court.
You are a worm.
You know full well that I defeated Judge Patrick Kelly, in higher courts.
You know that this was NEVER a criminal matter.
You know full well that I have no criminal record, whatsoever.
You know full well that I served for several years on the Wichita Traffic Commission and as Chief Deputy Sedgwick County Clerk and that none of this came up, at that time, because every responsible journalist in the area knows that the charges were and are false.
Try again, you coward.
Chas
If you would check the opening of this thread, and check what Palin has said, and what Cheney and Bush have said, the role of the VP CAN be LEGALLY expanded.
That would seem to indicate that the role has not always asserted itself, as much as the constitution would allow.
Which would seem to make you look like you are arguing with yourself, once again.
GOOD NIGHT, FRANKLIN… TRY A PILL… LOOKS LIKE YOU NEED SLEEP…. BYE!!! IDIOT!!
BJ
You are one sick, messed up excuse for a human being.
There are MILLIONS of people in this country who agree with me on issues.
You are so weak, mentally, that you like to chase everyone out of the room that disagrees with you, and then call a vote.
Problem is?
Once you are done kicking out everyone, you look kind of silly talking to yourself and counting your single vote.
ANSWER THE FREAKIN QUESTIONS, DUMB ASS….
AS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE VP, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR EXPANSION!! AT LEAST NOT WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT!!
WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THE NON EXPANSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS DONT YOU UNDERSTAND??
Huh?
YOU are defensive against things I never posted there Paul Rosell. Well, not tonight anyway.
Your first instinct is to go defensive.
I know it has to be difficult for you. Losing and all?
econ,
I would very much prefer (if McCain is elected) that Sarah Palin serve as president of the Senate, instead of as McCain’s energy expert(sic).
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/10/second-debate-was-a-real-snoozer/#comment-442894
Would you please ask Palin to pledge that she will serve as president of the Senate?
I know people who know you personally Paul.
They describe you as a zealot.
Chas
You are, once again, proving that you are not a preacher. Your behavior is more like that of a person who frequents a church-run soup kitchen and talks to himself and curses at those who try to help him, not like a “man of God” trying to help humanity.
I have made myself very clear, to anyone with a middle school education. Sorry if I am talking over your head, once again. Let me dumb-down the obvious for you:
Palin has stated that a VP COULD decide to run the Senate, EVERY DAY, if the VP chose to do so.
This WOULD be a change from current practice, to be sure, but PERFECTLY legal.
You shoot back with a weak, no-legal argument about history, and you don’t even have the humility to check out your brash, unfounded guesses before you post. Yes, there HAVE been tie-breaking votes, quite a few in fact.
However, the point that Palin was making is that the VP COULD do more than just break ties. The VP COULD preside over the Senate ALL THE TIME, and nobody could stop the VP from doing so without an Amendment to the Constitution.
For “Franklin” Paul Rosells sponsors that bring him here?
We know who he is and why he is here.
Since we already have a pretty good idea of McCane’s attitude toward women, I don’t think that we’ll have to worry about a “unitary executive theory” in a McCane administration. Palin would have done her job of securing the idiot vote, and would be entirely forgotten until the next state funeral. We’ll pray, as we have in so many recent administrations, that the next state funeral isn’t the president’s!
BJ
You remind me of kids on the playground.
You can not win, in an intelligent debate, so you try to bully your way through life.
Why should I care that some people that I defeated, in Republican Primaries, are upset with me?
Why should I care, that some people I defeated, in general elections, are upset with me?
That reflects on them, if they can not get on with their lives. I did nothing wrong. I fought for what I believed in and my side often won.
By the way, there are a few Democrats that I have fought for, as well.
Zealot? LOL, probably spoken by a political whore who did not like talking about the issues.
What is odd about you hard left libs is this: Many of us Grass Roots Republicans DO fight against the Country Club types that you complain about so much. We are pro business but we are anti-corruption. Crony Capitalism bothers us as much as Crony Socialism.
However? When you hard lefties want to trash a conservative? You run STRAIGHT to the Republican “moderate” Country Club crowd, lol.
I don’t care BJ.
If you want to make an omlete, you got to break some eggs.
The movement I was involved with helped elect Sam Brownback to the Senate.
Sam Brownback helped get Eric Melgren appointed to the US Attorney’s office and now, to the Federal Bench.
The people you might be talking to? They supported Brownback’s opponent in the primary, would be my guess.
Moderate Republicans want to be liked. They don’t really want to get anything done.
Anyway, I post this for others, who might be interested.
You, BJ, are far to shallow to really understand.
econ posted,
Palin has stated that a VP COULD decide to run the Senate, EVERY DAY, if the VP chose to do so.
This WOULD be a change from current practice, to be sure, but PERFECTLY legal.
————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate
“Acting President pro tempore
The President pro tempore, just like the Vice President, over time has ceased presiding over the Senate on a daily basis, owing to the MUNDANE nature of the position.
Furthermore, as the President pro tempore is now usually the most senior senator of the majority party, he or she most likely also chairs a major Senate committee, along with other duties this status entails. Therefore, the President pro tempore has less time now than in the past to preside daily over the Senate.
Instead, junior senators of the majority party are designated acting President pro tempore to preside over the Senate on a daily basis. This allows junior senators to learn proper parliamentary procedure.”
Bookmarking you Paul.
Thanks!
BJ
Your paranoid delusions are getting old.
I am here on my own accord, because I believe in what I say, and because I believe that most who come to this forum wish to use their minds and try to understand the opposition, even if most of us don’t change our minds easily.
I am here because some of my best friends have always been Democrats, and because talking to people who always agree with me is no fun.
I am here because some “undecideds” DO check out the Blog sometimes, and I try to make sure that they know that YOU, BJ, are a Democrat, as I am sure that alone helps bring a few people to the Republican point of view.
I have many Republican friends, all over the Country. Yes, we share ideas, big deal. Yes, some of my ideas HAVE shown up in political advertising from time to time. Big Deal.
I am a volunteer. The Republican cause is just and right and does not require payment for most of our workers.
Unlike the criminal thugs at ACORN, that Obama paid $800,000.00, just this year, most of our workers are in this cause out of the belief that we are doing what is best for our country.
You are such a small, petty person that you can not believe anyone would ever disagree with you without getting paid to do so.
That only means that you are so anti-social, so strange, so damn scairy to most of the people in your life, that most folks would prefer not to talk to you at all, let alone argue with you.
Failure on your part to convince me there Paul.
MAYBE you convinced yourself?
And of course, your own personal gratification and agenda is all you are here for anyway.
Bye. And I hope this country has the same to say for you and yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate
“Acting President pro tempore
The President pro tempore, just like the Vice President, over time has ceased presiding over the Senate on a daily basis, owing to the MUNDANE nature of the position.”