Talk:Presiding Officer of the United States Senate

message: This article reflects a misunderstanding. There is no office of "Presiding Officer of the United States Senate".  The term just refers to who's presiding at the moment.  That can be the Vice President, the President Pro Tempore, or someone designated by the President Pro Tempore.  Usually, unless there's something unusually important going on, it's some junior senator. --John Nagle 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's just a quick glossary, not a description of actual titles.  The way the Senate officially handles this can be seen in this issue of the Congressional record.  On that day, the President Pro Tempore wasn't present, and Sen. Allard (D-Colorado) was presiding.  He called the Senate to order, then had a note from the President Pro Tempore read which appointed Sen. Allard as "Acting President Pro Tempore".  "Mr. ALLARD thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore." The term "presiding officer of the United States Senate" just isn't used.  --John Nagle 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "presiding officer of the United States Senate" just was used just before he was appointed Acting Prez. pro temp.  If it means that much to you, it should be merged with [[Acting President pro temporSee my further discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presiding Officer of the United States Senate.—Markles 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: Next year is going to be interesting.  With the Senate so closely balanced, and the Republicans in the minority, Cheney may spend more time presiding.  Few Vice Presidents preside much, but we may see an exception next year.  --John Nagle 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch what happens next year 

message: So, this lede is not quite up to snuff:
# the President pro tempore term/position is used before it is defined. More generally, early in the lede it says "The actual role is usually performed by one of three people" without no actual discussion of or connection to this term and position. It would be much better to say the Vice President is the constitutionally designated person, and then discuss ways in which other people can be appointed. This entire chunk should probably be rewritten; the details isn't needed in the lede
# "the aforementioned Rule I" - what aforementioned Rule I?
# besides, "one of three people" is misleading. Three roles or positions, yes. But the lede itself discusses FOUR people: the VP, the "most senior senator of the majority party", a "junior senator" and the Chief Justice. We can do better, people.
CapnZapp (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy edit 

message: I don't see an account being made of the time from March 3 to Dec. 3 in 1883. There was no Vice President, because this is still during the unexpired Presidential term of Garfield.  PLEASE FIX.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B124:2A80:43E6:23CD:B2E7:259 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No fix needed, and no vacancy existed. Davis's term as president pro tempore ended with the end of 47th United States Congress on March 3, 1883, and then, when the 48th United States Congress convened on December 3, 1883, George Edmunds was electerd to succeed Davis president pro tempore. Drdpw (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Drdpw, according to the article List of presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, George F. Edmunds served as President Pro Tempore from March 3, 1883 to December 2, 1883, then again from December 3, 1883 to January 14, 1884 (no real gap from the prior term assuming that it had ended at midnight of the prior day) and finally from January 14, 1884 to March 3, 1885.  Similarly, the George F. Edmunds article sets forth that Edmunds served as President Pro Tempore from March 3, 1883 to March 3, 1885.  Are both such articles wrong, or is there a gap in the list provided in the article on Presiding Officers of the Senate? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles are correct, and I am wrong - mea culpa. Drdpw (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it happens to all of us.  We’re only as knowledgeable as the sources that we’ve read, so if you had read a source with incomplete information you would have no way of knowing that Edmunds had been elected PPT on March 3 prior to his December 3 (re)election.  But you looked into it when you became apprised that what you had read was incomplete, and corrected your mistake, and that’s what counts.  Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 1883 gap

message: Yes, the President was on trial for one or more articles of impeachment when that happened (Chief Justices Salmon Chase in 1868 and William Rehnquist in 1999).  Does this imply that the Senate can NOT handle non-trial business during such period?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.94 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think entries in the congressional record such as https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/2/3/senate-section/article/s1134-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22The+Vice+President%22%2C%22The+%5C%22Vice+President%5C%22%22%5D%7D&r=29 confirm that the VP continues to be the presiding officer of the senate during the impeachment time periods, when the Senate is in Legislative or Executive business (i.e. not sitting in trial). meamemg (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Justice listed as the presiding officer 

message: Bush (41) & Cheney were still Vice President of the United States, while performing duties as Acting President (respectively in 1985, 2002 & 2007) & therefore were still President of the Senate & thus presiding officer - at least in name. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When the VP is acting as President of the United States pursuant to Section 3 of the 25th Amendment, he is the only person in the government who can discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President, and thus the only person with the power to nominate, withdraw the nomination of, or make a recess appointment of judges, ambassadors or cabinet officers, sign or veto bills passed by both houses, etc.  Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President pro tempore shall be the person entitled to preside over the Senate "in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."  The Framers couldn't have meant for "when he shall exercise the Office of President" to mean "when the VP becomes President" instead of "when the VP is discharging the powers and duties of the office of President," for the simple reason that when the VP becomes President of the U.S. *he no longer is the VP*, so there would be no doubt that he no longer would be able to preside over the Senate.  Besides, the structure of the Constitution, including, in particular, its separation of powers, require us to read "when he shall exercise the Office of President" to include such times as the VP is Acting President, because otherwise the same person simultaneously could wield the executive powers of withdrawing a judicial nomination and nominating a new judge (and actually appointing him if the Senate is in recess) as well as the legislative powers of presiding over the Senate confirmation hearing for his judicial nominee and casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate if the Senators are evenly divided.  For these reasons, a VP serving as Acting President of the United States would not be able to preside over the Senate. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "when he shall exercise the Office of President", which means Acting President. Ok, thanks for the clarification :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

text: That seems right.  It is not clear that the framers even considered that the VP "became" president if the president died but was "merely" filling in and exercising the office of president until a new president was elected. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush (41), Cheney & the prez pro tempores 

message: I think that it would be useful and interesting to readers if the table with presiding officers included a column with the political party of each presiding officer during his service as such.  What do you all think?  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party of Presiding Officer