Why don't Vice President's actually preside over the Senate

[Invisible Man]

The Constitution says, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate."

So why don't VPs ever insist on actually exercising that authority? This would make the difference between their having very little power and having a great deal of power. This would especially matter in situations where the VP is of a different party than the majority of the Senate. They could make a big difference in pushing legislation and votes they want and impeding legislation and votes they don't.

As it is, the VP pretty much sits out of all Senate business unless they get to cast a tie breaking vote, and they let the Senate Majority Leader preside. Why do VPs go along with this? What's in it for them to minimize their own roles?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The Constitution says, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate."

So why don't VPs ever insist on actually exercising that authority?

But what does that authority really entail? While the Constitution spells out the authority of the President the only specified authority of the VP as President of the Senate is to break ties and count the electoral votes. In addition, it has been the practice for the VP to attest that an enrolled bill has been passed by the Senate. Given that Article I Section 5 gives to the House and Senate the authority to set their own rules, I'd say the VP has very little authority.

 

[TheTexan]

Clearly there is some power to the position, otherwise people wouldn't care who the majority leader is

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLlQW2mLRdw