Cheney: Office not part of executive branch

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Can't the President let whoever he wants into his Cabinet meetings? Or give anyone he wants an office at the White House?

I suppose, but this would at least preclude an appeal to the Adams precedent.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
John Adams was not in fact a rival to George Washington, and was more "pro-Washington" than Jefferson was.

But he wasn't George's running mate...

At the time, did other candidates realistically expect to be able to beat Washington? Or did they believe themselves to be fighting for second place - the vice presidency. This is an honest question; I'm curious.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lorizael


But he wasn't George's running mate...

At the time, did other candidates realistically expect to be able to beat Washington? Or did they believe themselves to be fighting for second place - the vice presidency. This is an honest question; I'm curious.

The latter, I'm quite sure, was the case during the relevant election, in 1789. The next election in 1792, I think was still the case - Jefferson was consciously running against Adams, not Washington, though J's relations with W were starting to grow strained. Adams, if not W's running mate legally, was clearly in the Federalist faction with Hamilton that tended to rally around W on controversial issues, such as Hamilton's financial plan, and the Jay treaty (though Im foggy on the date of the latter).

[Patroklos]

and the constitution really does seem to indicate, in pretty clear language, that the VP is a member of the executive branch.

Then kindly point the relevant portion out, because the portion you posted says nothing of the sort.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then kindly point the relevant portion out, because the portion you posted says nothing of the sort.

That you would confuse me with Vesayen hurts in a way I can't even begin to put into words.

[Patroklos]

Ha, sorry, I have adminstered the appropriate number of lashings.

[Kuciwalker]

I still think it's fairly silly to complain about Cheney himself violating a Bush executive order.

[Arrian]

Does it stand a chance of setting precedent? If yes, then it's not silly to complain/worry about it. If no, you might be right.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Presumably the VP will always be buddy-buddy with the Pres. In that case, if the VP really has a problem with it they can just write an exception.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Then kindly point the relevant portion out, because the portion you posted says nothing of the sort.

Article II Executive

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


VP is defined by virtue of this section as being part of the executive.

[DinoDoc]

Why is his salary paid by the Senate?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then kindly point the relevant portion out, because the portion you posted says nothing of the sort.

The thing is, discounting all the talk about who takes over if the executive branch falls apart, the Constitution actually says very little about the Vice Presidency. He's mentioned in Article I as being President of the Senate and in Article II as serving the same term as the President.

Arg, the Constitution is a little vague here, which is kind of disappointing.

Article I begins by stating that all legislative power shall be vested in a Congress, and then goes on to describe what the Congress will consist of.

Article II similarly states that executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States - again an introduction to the relevant entities in the government.

The Vice President never gets a similar introduction. The two relevant portions I mentioned say "the Vice President" as if he has already been introduced and defined.

It seems mostly precedent nowadays that the VP is treated solely as a member of the executive branch, even though his only defined power, of course, is one used in the legislative branch. I think the important thing to figure out here, then, is what the founders thought.

On the surface, though, it seems pretty intuitive to believe that the Vice President is a member of the executive just based on his name alone. I think if the founders had wanted him to be known as a legislative figure rather than an executive one, they would have (A) given him a different name (like President of the Senate, for example) and (B) not had his election to office determined the same way that the President is determined.

[DinoDoc]

Lorizael: Now we're back to LotM's Adam's example.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, based on the arrangement of the text it reads a lot more like he's supposed to be part of the legislature.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Lorizael: Now we're back to LotM's Adam's example.

which is contradictory. W believed that A. The VP WAS part of the legislative and B. that precluded his participation in cabinet meetings.

But for a very long time (?) we've disregarded W on the latter. Certainly the Dubya has. But so has every president since at least JFK. So if we say a VP can be part of the cabinet, does that mean A. We no longer thing hes part of the Legislative or B. We no longer take seperation of powers as seriously as GW did?