THREAD: a point worth addressing is "how would/should VP respond if GOP retained its majority, then voted to suspend/amend a Senate Rule depriving the presiding officer of power." Paragraph 6 of the article wasn't as strong as it could have been, on that point.

The problem with that attack is encapsulated in the Senate's official history (cited graf 7) - https://t.co/UwF93b9YaA

The Senate's official history on its https://t.co/gLTPXi8eiT site recounts the Constitutional fact that the majority leader's presiding powers are derivative.
A power informally delegated by the VP can be taken back, so the Senate history accurately describes the majority leader as "an emperor without clothes." So, if the VP used presiding power to give priority to a senator moving a House-passed bill to the floor, and . . .
. . . the House purported to override that action by 1) self-recognizing the ML to do something different, and then 2) sustaining a point of order limiting the VP's presiding power, what would be the legal basis and remedy for that action?
Several principles intersect here that arise from agency rulemaking. But first, we have to recognize the Supremacy Clause - the Constitution is a superior law to any other law, rule or precedent.
The Senate Rules describe the powers of the Presiding Officer, and can be suspended or amended by the majority, but that action would not be valid if it deprived the VP of her constitutional presiding power. The Constitution is supreme over the rule, not the other way around.
Then, look at Senate Rules restricting the presiding power like other rulemaking - it must be within the scope of statutory (or, here, constitutional) authorization. The Constitution endows Senate with power to "chuse its other officers" BUT not the presiding officer.
Only a Constitutional amendment could divest the VP. So to the extent Senate Rules were applied to do so, it would violate Art. 1 Sec. 3 and the Supremacy Clause.

And then, return to the idea that the majority leader's presiding power is derivative/delegated by the VP . . .
. . . or, a glass cannot be smaller than the water poured from it. If the Senate limited the presiding officer's powers, those limitations must apply to the majority leader and VP equally, or conversely would be an unconstitutional limitation of the VP's presiding power.
We have precedent in the agency context, analyzing whether a rulemaking exceeds statutory authority. The Constitution being the supreme statute under its own Supremacy Clause, rulemaking that made the derivative ML power larger than VP's power would violate those precedents.
How would that play out? If VP recognized a Senator to move a bill, and Mitch tried to stop her? A floor fight on this topic COULD generate a Supreme Court petition, and in this hypothetical, VP would have standing to petition, and I believe the court would hear it. . . .
. . . and resolve in her favor. Would that take more than a minute? Sure? Is it worth teeing up and doing? Good God, there are hundreds of House-passed bills that would save and improve American lives.
Many have wide popular support and would draw enough GOP votes to pass the Senate, or cause the rejecting Senators to lose their seats if their votes were on record. Sure, it's worth doing. And even the possibility of divesting the ML's power, seriously posed, could deter abuse.
Another point was raised - didn't the early Senate successfully rebel against the VP's presiding powers? Such data prior to Marbury v. Madison isn't relevant to the framework here, because at that time, SCOTUS did not assert jurisdiction to review laws or rulemaking.
I hope this is helpful, and I am still happy to address any "debunking" if it is cited. Several have said "but this was already debunked," but thus far no one has presented that putative "debunking" to me for review.
My head was seemingly doing this constitutional/rulemaking analysis when I wrote the article,but I failed to fully unpack and explain it. Always a mistake, whether for judges or the public! So consider this thread my reply brief, if you will.

More from For later read

Humans inherently like the act of solidarity. We are social beings. We like to huddle up and be together.
They used this against us.
They convinced us that it was an act of solidarity to flatten the curve, to wear a mask for others, to take the vaccines for others,


and to reach #covidzero for others. They convinced us that this was for the greater good of society.
In reality, this couldn't be further away from the truth. They have divided us and broken the core structure of our society. They have dehumanized us with their masks.

They set us against each other into clans on opposite sides of a spectrum. They have turned us into aggressive beings fighting for our survival. Some of us fear harm from the virus, others fear harm from the vaccine, and yet others fear harm from the attack on our civilization.

We are all on a flight or fight mode. We are all operating under the influence of fear. We must collect ourselves and reflect on what has happened over the last year.
How is this for the greater good of society?

They used a tactical warfare strategy against us.
'Divide and conquer'.
We fell for it.
Now we must become aware of it and fight back.
We must reunite. We must find true solidarity to save our world. To free ourselves. To regain our autonomy.

You May Also Like

🌺कैसे बने गरुड़ भगवान विष्णु के वाहन और क्यों दो भागों में फटी होती है नागों की जिह्वा🌺

महर्षि कश्यप की तेरह पत्नियां थीं।लेकिन विनता व कद्रु नामक अपनी दो पत्नियों से उन्हे विशेष लगाव था।एक दिन महर्षि आनन्दभाव में बैठे थे कि तभी वे दोनों उनके समीप आकर उनके पैर दबाने लगी।


प्रसन्न होकर महर्षि कश्यप बोले,"मुझे तुम दोनों से विशेष लगाव है, इसलिए यदि तुम्हारी कोई विशेष इच्छा हो तो मुझे बताओ। मैं उसे अवश्य पूरा करूंगा ।"

कद्रू बोली,"स्वामी! मेरी इच्छा है कि मैं हज़ार पुत्रों की मां बनूंगी।"
विनता बोली,"स्वामी! मुझे केवल एक पुत्र की मां बनना है जो इतना बलवान हो की कद्रू के हज़ार पुत्रों पर भारी पड़े।"
महर्षि बोले,"शीघ्र ही मैं यज्ञ करूंगा और यज्ञ के उपरांत तुम दोनो की इच्छाएं अवश्य पूर्ण होंगी"।


महर्षि ने यज्ञ किया,विनता व कद्रू को आशीर्वाद देकर तपस्या करने चले गए। कुछ काल पश्चात कद्रू ने हज़ार अंडों से काले सर्पों को जन्म दिया व विनता ने एक अंडे से तेजस्वी बालक को जन्म दिया जिसका नाम गरूड़ रखा।जैसे जैसे समय बीता गरुड़ बलवान होता गया और कद्रू के पुत्रों पर भारी पड़ने लगा


परिणामस्वरूप दिन प्रतिदिन कद्रू व विनता के सम्बंधों में कटुता बढ़ती गयी।एकदिन जब दोनो भ्रमण कर रहीं थी तब कद्रू ने दूर खड़े सफेद घोड़े को देख कर कहा,"बता सकती हो विनता!दूर खड़ा वो घोड़ा किस रंग का है?"
विनता बोली,"सफेद रंग का"।
तो कद्रू बोली,"शर्त लगाती हो? इसकी पूँछ तो काली है"।