The White House (Jan 2006)

[Bono]

If it's only a mere procedural formality, why is there such a big fuss over it?  Easy:  because it's not just a formality.  It would critically alter the way the Senate does its business.

Not really.  In fact, that's quite a big over-estimation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It makes perfect sense.  The issue I have is not so much that I fear the bill will not be supported by a single senator.  It is the fact that I have to submit my bill to a senator, wait for them to read it, wait for a response from them to see if they like it and then wait for them to introduce it.  Then, if I realize I made a slight mistake or forgot something just after it's introduced, I then have to contact the senator again, tell them my amendment, and then wait for them to amend that post.  This change is a step toward better political expediency, not merely a way to lord it over the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it turns out that no senator would support the bill in the first place, then obviously that would mean the bill would fail, and I would hardly be in a position to complain about it.  Therefore, the balance of power would remain firmly in place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I realize this might seem just a little unfair, and therefore I've been working on a compromise idea.  While senators' legislation is guaranteed one of four spots on the Senate floor, as is now, presidential legislation would be given a fifth spot as and when it is introduced (subject to a similar queue).  This does not change the order of business as far as senators are concerned, and presidential legislation is therefore treated as 'additional' to Senate business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not defending the suppression of civil rights here.  I'm defending a procedural amendment, the effect of which is being vastly overstated by yourself.

The effective elimination of the separation of powers is a supression of civil rights.

[Bono]

What?  Like I said, all existing checks and balances are still in place.  I won't be getting a vote in the Senate, and the senators will still debate and vote on bills as usual.

In any case, my second-in-command already has a casting vote and various administrative duties in the Senate, so I'm not sure what aspect of the separation of powers you're concerned about now.

I'm concerned that the power of the president is to put laws into action, not to write them, adn this fundamentally changes that.
As for the VP, his vote comes from his position as President of the Senate, not as VP.