What does a Vice President Do?
Saturday, 4. October 2008, 16:54:10
Naturally, Palin played that comment off as a joke during the debate, and said that she would continue with current Vice President Dick Cheney's tactic of working in both the executive and legislative branches. "I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate," she said during the debate. She went on to indicate that she'd use her position to frame energy policy, policy towards families and education with regards to people with disabilities, and some other items.
Biden had the response on this question, and stated that Cheney had overstepped the bounds of his role, calling him the "most dangerous vice president in U.S. history." Biden insisted the vice president's only authority in the legislative branch is to vote in the Senate in the event of a tie. Biden went on to suggest that his role would be advisory, and that he would sit in on meetings and offer counsel.
Leaving aside the fact that Palin's mantra during the debate was that Biden and Obama spend a lot of time looking back, for candidates who aspouse to be about change, and that the McCain camp has coopted change as their issue, and that carrying on like Cheney did is both looking backward, and not change, the stark differences between the two makes me wonder. What the heck does a Vice President do? Franklin Roosevelt's Vice President, John Nance Gardner said the Vice Presidency wasn't "worth a bucket of warm spit." Allegely, "spit" was a an editorial euphemism for the rhyming word Nance actually used. I had to figure out what gets dumped in the bucket.
Article I of the United States Constitution provides details about the powers of Congress. Article I Section 3 states that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Executive, or Presidential power is defined in Article II of the Constitution. It doesn't say much about the choosing of a Vice President, and the current electoral process has evolved over time. Section 1 states that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."
In 1841, President Wm. Henry Harrison died in office, and Vice President John Tyler assumed the Presidency. He asserted that he was, in fact, Predient (not simply the acting president), and refused to acknowldge documents referring to him as "acting President." He took the oath of office, an act that was not challenged in court. The precedent was set, but the grounds for such action were iffy. The 25th Amendment explicitly states that President Tyler's actions were appropriate, and would be the accepted path for the future. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to become President through the death, incapacity, impeachment or resignation of the President.
The question of how vacancies in the Vice are to be filled is answered in Section 2 of the 25th Amendment, which says that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." This is authority President Nixon used to replace Vice President Agnew with Vice President Ford, who then named Nelson Rockefeller Vice President when he succeeded Nixon as President. THat's the only time in history that we've had a President and a Vice President that were not elected by the people.
Vice President's are paid the same amount as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which is currently $221,000.
What, then, does the Vice President do? Presides over the Senate, voting in the event of a tie, and takes over for the President, if necessary. That's it, in terms of a formal role. Lately, Vice Presidents like Al Gore and Dick Cheney have been more active than have their historical counterparts. Nothing says they can't, but nothing says they can, either. We've seen 16 years of increasingly active Vice Presidents, so look for future Vice Presidents to continue the trend.



daxonmacs # 4. October 2008, 18:34
Learned what a bucket of warm spit really was, makes more sense now.
Apparently vice-presidents role isn't a precise defined role.
Sounds like a job for me.
Nice post Matt
Very informative.
DBabbit # 4. October 2008, 20:53
qlue # 4. October 2008, 21:11
ellinidata # 4. October 2008, 22:59
That's the only way should have been all these eight years,
Palin did smile while Biden was making his position on VP clear,
I wonder if the smile was because
she felt uncomfortable for her lack of information,
because she wanted to say thank you for putting the record straight,
or because she wanted to punch him in the stomach.....
what ever the case,lets hope and pray no other Cheney takes over the V/Presidency .
noah counte # 4. October 2008, 23:37
I_ArtMan # 5. October 2008, 03:45
i don't see any reason why a vice-president shouldn't do more. he could sort of ambassador around freelance and report back to the congress and the president. or what if a president is just kinda lazy like i think bush is.... then the vice-president could take up the slack. working together of course and with the consensus of advisors, and congress who are supposed to represent 'the people'.
noah counte # 5. October 2008, 04:19
I couldn't bite my tongue any longer. I am getting ready to post on the VP debate.
daxonmacs # 5. October 2008, 04:23
noah counte # 5. October 2008, 04:29
daxonmacs # 5. October 2008, 04:51
I_ArtMan # 5. October 2008, 04:56
DBabbit # 5. October 2008, 05:03
We're still hoping so, Scott.
ellinidata # 5. October 2008, 06:10
we didn't know for whom you will be voting all this time!
go for it!
freedom of speech applies to the Librarians too ,even if Mrs Palin has a different opinion
noah counte # 5. October 2008, 13:25
daxonmacs # 5. October 2008, 20:12
noah counte # 6. October 2008, 02:27
daxonmacs # 6. October 2008, 06:46
noah counte # 6. October 2008, 11:36
That's a gross exaggeration - there are plenty of very moral conservatives - but there is truth to it, especially in the masses. Conservativism, like the religion of need, sometimes has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with comfort.
noah counte # 6. October 2008, 11:36
That's a gross exaggeration - there are plenty of very moral conservatives - but there is truth to it, especially in the masses. Conservativism, like the religion of need, sometimes has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with comfort.
edwardpiercy # 6. October 2008, 15:49
I_ArtMan # 6. October 2008, 19:21
edwardpiercy # 6. October 2008, 22:21
Let me say it again -- Treason.
Now you know why I'm not voting in November.
noah counte # 7. October 2008, 02:44
"Support our Troops" is a perfect example. The phrase is a complete misnomer - support of our troops has nothing to do with supporting the war, yet there is no excaping the fact that if you don't support the war, you are 1) letting our troops down, and 2) that's not patriotic. Democrats should have been bucking this argument since at least 2004 (when some of them finally got their heads out of their asses, and figured out that the war on terror had nothing to do with Iraq). They could have reframed it by separating the two:
Of course, as Edward says, the voices opposing the unfair casting of supporting our troops as supporting the war and therefore patriotism were few and quiet. And we let it happen. We've let fear cow us into believing any damned thing our politicians tell us, while we tell each other they aren't to be trusted.
edwardpiercy # 7. October 2008, 03:01
And I thank you for letting me vent a little on your blog -- I almost came back and deleted that Comment. But I think I might do something in the next few days that is kinda-sort relevent.
I_ArtMan # 7. October 2008, 03:02
"define your terms... socrates used to say.
we can't talk unless we are using words which mean the same thing to all of us. it's in the government's interest nowadays to confuse us.
what we have now is the alice in wonderland syndrome. she says, "when i use a word it means what i mean it to mean."
edwardpiercy # 7. October 2008, 03:14
Also goog points, Scott. We have to have a concept of truth, not just spin and endless talking without meaning.
noah counte # 7. October 2008, 03:54
Thanks for the comment, Scott. Luntz, at least, is a return to the post modernist belief that meaning rested in the reader (receiver), and that once it left the author's pen (mouth), it was no longer his or hers.
I_ArtMan # 7. October 2008, 05:53
noah counte # 7. October 2008, 13:07
edwardpiercy # 7. October 2008, 14:22
The villages? Does she think she's in Botswana or something? Medieval England?
I suppose they could be Indian villages in Alaska. But she's not in Alaska, she's in Florida.
I_ArtMan # 7. October 2008, 15:58
boy, she is under a microscope now.... why would anyone want to be president anyway?
edwardpiercy # 7. October 2008, 16:01
noah counte # 7. October 2008, 16:05
edwardpiercy # 7. October 2008, 16:12
noah counte # 7. October 2008, 16:28
ellinidata # 7. October 2008, 16:46
maybe she should see this video,
then a visit will be in order!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk
noah counte # 7. October 2008, 17:02
I_ArtMan # 7. October 2008, 20:34
boy, that was cute meli. thanks for sharing
ellinidata # 8. October 2008, 01:01