"...the most useless office ever devised by the mind of man..."
--attributed to John Adams, first Vice-President
I have serious issues with both VP candidates. None of them are enough to swing my presidential vote one way or another (or more precisely, they kind of cancel each other out). Ms. Palin's competence to assume the presidency on a moment's notice is absolutely a concern. And Mr. Biden has one of the worst voting records on issues that the Democrats are typically the better party on (civil liberties, foreign policy). More to the point, I think the level of attention the vice-presidential race is getting is completely out of proportion with its actual importance.
However.
There is one issue that I would really like to hear Biden and Palin address. The most important question that can be asked tonight of both candidates comes from Gene Healy:
The claim by Dick Cheney that he was exempt from certain disclosure requirements because the vice president was a “legislative officer” has been greeted with outrage. But the main power the Constitution grants the vice president is a legislative one — breaking a tie vote in the Senate.
So, Governor Palin, Senator Biden, doesn’t Mr. Cheney have a point?
But, then, if the vice president is a legislative officer, how can he wield the vast executive powers that Mr. Cheney has exercised, including orchestrating and supervising a warrantless wiretapping program?
Can the vice president shift between branches at his convenience? If not, what, in your view, is the constitutional status of the vice presidency?
I fully expect that this issue will remain completely unaddressed this evening.
UPDATE I am pleasantly surprised to have been wrong about this. And doubly so that Biden more or less nailed it (from about 1:10 on in the video below.)
6 comments:
i'll be turning the sound waaaay down, and paying close attention to what really matters: the hotness of Gopmilf, and what a nice change of face to present to the world.
issues matter? only in the short term. the cycle of civilization is moving far afield from what i prefer as the best form of governance (is that a word?).
and the role of VP is exactly what the SCOTUS can enforce. nothing more,or less, for the constitution has ceased to really exist as an honorable document.
but when america's image in the world is in the shitter (isnt this the main bitch of the left and the obama cultists?), it may be time we, at the least, stood up for our women, and show the world just what does pass for the american feminine ideal.
My main bitch is that the idea and face of America are indeed in the shitter, but that is mostly because after 8 years of altering the constitution de facto by a white house and a VP chair that has done all it could to magnetize power to the executive branch. Meaning - if we actually did our government like it's set up to be done we wouldn't have to force the idea down everybody's throat, they'd steal it.
Plus, the last thing we need, after 8 years of a complete Republican boob making us look like assholes, is to have a pushy bag of cancer and his ditzy numbskull sockpuppet take the helm.
Then we'll have 16 years of proving to the world that we are exactly the kind of idiots they take us for.
The VP's primary function is legislative - Article 1 makes the VP the President of the Senate. He maintains an office at the Capitol and is paid from the same account as US senators are paid. Any executive role assigned to the VP is informal; that is, the role is not assigned by legislation or constitutional requirement but by request of the president. Certainly Cheney functions as a sort of Executive Officer (I would say Chief of Staff but that title is already occupied) for the administration. But he does so because he chooses to, not because he is required to either by law or presidential directive. As an elected official, the VP is not subject to the hierarchical relationship to the president that executive branch members (such as department secretaries) are. In other words, the President cannot fire the VP. So while practically the VP functions as a member of the executive branch, in theory he is not legally part of the executive branch. So I would conclude that Cheney in this case is largely correct.
Dave, I think the the main problem with Cheney's argument is that (IIRC) he was invoking his status as a legislative officer to claim that his communications pursuant his informal executive capacity were privileged.
That, and the "informal executive capacity" is in and of itself rather problematic, but certainly not limited to the office of the VP or Cheney...
dave sure gets a awful lot out of just "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Every other mention of the Vice President in the constitution addresses either his election, how he can be replaced, or how he replaces the President and under what conditions.
If we're going to read the colloquial into it (i.e., "he has an office in the Capitol") then we can equally say that since Presidents and Vice-Presidents are elected as a team he is part of the executive.
The issue is more than Cheney, though I agree he has been the most dangerous VP we've had since Aaron Burr and also applaud Biden for saying so out loud, the issue is how the War Powers have been either usurped or "gotten around". The mixture of a rube in the Oval Office, a devious little snit as his Veep, and a compliant and cowed Congress has given us what we have today - not three paragraphs of extrapolation based on 23 words in Section 3 of Article 1!
i didnt hear this part of the debate. like i said, the sound was down, and also, i decided painting my stairway was a more pressing matter.
at least i maintain my priorites.
now, to the topic:
as RW said, this issue is more than cheney.
but, if, it was VP algore, using (or abusing,take your pick) his office to wage war against global climate change, would there be an issue for glen ifill and the left to bring up?
rightfully,yes.
politically, no.
seems to me, this issue, as it is now being played, is more about who's ox is gored than about the true status of the VP.
should the scotus decide and define, it decision will also likely fall among similar idealogical lines.
intellectually,its not about cheney. it shouldn't be. but it will be.
Post a Comment