Skip navigation.

Log in | Sign up

photo of Matthew

Noah Counte

Hanging around in a one horse town

What does a Vice President Do?

,

Last Thursday's Vice Prsidential debate gave us a lot to think about. Like, is it really a debate if one of the debators doesn't answer the questions asked by the moderator? That's a whole other blog post (I'm really iirked by the fact that Gov. Palin said "I won't answer the questions," and was permitted to get away with making talking points that had nothing to do with the debate that was going on around her. I hope someone blogs about it, but I probably won't - I'm too danged angry!). One question that both participants answered had to do with what their roles as Vice President would be. Remember that some time back, Gov. Palin wondered aloud what the heck a vice president does.


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.

Happy Birthday Steve ReichThe Vice Presidential Debates, and Other Stuff

Comments

daxonmacs 4. October 2008, 18:34

Quite the read.
Learned what a bucket of warm spit really was, makes more sense now. :lol:
Apparently vice-presidents role isn't a precise defined role.
Sounds like a job for me. :D
Nice post Matt :up:
Very informative.

DBabbit 4. October 2008, 20:53

Palin makes the Republicans look like idiots. Good choice there - McCain will surely be running the entire show while Palin stares out the window dreaming about soccor moms, bulldogs, and lipstick. :rolleyes:

qlue 4. October 2008, 21:11

Nice post. :up:

ellinidata 4. October 2008, 22:59

"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."


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'm glad I'm not the only one who learned something. :smile: Thanks for reading, y'all.

I_ArtMan 5. October 2008, 03:45

a very informative exposition, matthew. i am sure we are all very grateful for the facts. that's about what i assumed. but i didn't know it was different before tyler.

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

Yeah. The problem I see is the one Bush's "laziness" exposes: Cheney's been able to run what I think is a shadow government out of the VP's office.

I couldn't bite my tongue any longer. I am getting ready to post on the VP debate.

daxonmacs 5. October 2008, 04:23

Give'm hell! :lol:

noah counte 5. October 2008, 04:29

Man, I do ramble. It's a very long post, and while I thought I'd be fairly non-partisan, that's not the way it turned out. No one will question for whom I will be voting, I don't think.

daxonmacs 5. October 2008, 04:51

No wonder with her winking at you :lol:

I_ArtMan 5. October 2008, 04:56

it's a serious business and it's right that we be free to speak our minds. :sherlock: it's a free country isn't it? :whistle:

DBabbit 5. October 2008, 05:03



it's a serious business and it's right that we be free to speak our minds. it's a free country isn't it?



We're still hoping so, Scott.

ellinidata 5. October 2008, 06:10

Matt,
we didn't know for whom you will be voting all this time! :lol:
go for it!
freedom of speech applies to the Librarians too ,even if Mrs Palin has a different opinion :down:

noah counte 5. October 2008, 13:25

Unfortunately, it applies to Palin, as well. The new campaign tactics are offensive.

daxonmacs 5. October 2008, 20:12

They are all over the news here.

noah counte 6. October 2008, 02:27

Which is the goal, I guess. Any advertising is good advertising.

daxonmacs 6. October 2008, 06:46

People here shake their heads though. This still is mainly a pretty conservative lace, no idea how I ended up here :D

noah counte 6. October 2008, 11:36

There's comfort in conservativism, at least in this country. It allows people to be moralistic without having to be moral.

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

There's comfort in conservativism, at least in this country. It allows people to be moralistic without having to be moral.

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

Left or Right, I think the old "bread and circuses" idea almost always holds true. Or, these days, "cheap gasoline and DVDs."


I_ArtMan 6. October 2008, 19:21

what surprises me is nobody even seems to care that both parties are "hawks"

edwardpiercy 6. October 2008, 22:21

Most politicians back during Vietnam were hawks. There were very few that were opposed to the war until well into the 70s. But now, I don't think it is quite the same thing. You have a few Right-Wingers (or Lieberman) who actually do believe in the war. So they are true hawks. What gets me is the other side of the isle. They really aren't doves. They say they oppose the war, and yet they keep voting the money for it time after time based on the whole Support the Troops bullshit. What I think is really going on with most Democrats is they are extending an unpopular war closer to the next election in order to increase the chances of their party. In other words, they sacrificed lives to further their political careers. Which to me constitutes Treason.

Let me say it again -- Treason.

Now you know why I'm not voting in November.

noah counte 7. October 2008, 02:44

I saw a great show last night on Link TV. George Lakoff, the linguist, was one of the panelists. He's always great. He talks about "frames" that are used, in this case by the parties, to frame conversation/debate. There were a couple of other fellows on, Frank Luntz and Drew Weston whose names esscape me. Luntz used the word "contexts" for the same sort of meaning (or, in the parlance of the show, maipulation). Drew Weston used yet another word to describe the same phenomenon, which is, that for years, Democrats have let conservatives (you can quarrel with labels - I use them for the sake of argument) frame debates. If you want ot see it work really well, liten to Rush LImbaugh or watch Bill O'Reiley.

"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:

  • "Supporting our troops means that not one more dies in a war for oil;"
  • "Supporting our troops means they come home in daylight, so everyone can see their flag-draped coffins, as they have in past wars, not under cover of the night when no one is looking, because war dead is bad for business;"
  • "Supporting our troops means paying for benefits for tens of thousands of veterans who are suffering and getting substandard treatment at VA Hospitals that are infested with roaches;"
  • "Supporting our troops means buy them body armor and bullet proof Humvees, instead of forcing their families to take up collections to by adequate protection for their sons, daughters, husbands, wives and children who put themselves in harm's way for their country."


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

Excellent points, Matt.

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

we need a refendum or a tax revolt.

"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. :cool:

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." :smile:

edwardpiercy 7. October 2008, 03:14

I did decide to delete that one line about taking them all out. Best not to get you involved with the Department of Homeland Security.

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

Vent away, Edward. That's what I've been doing (darned little music and randomness lately, by gosh)!

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

i guess i am a pre-post-modernist then. wait, that would be a modernist. can we just say i'm an ancientist... that will do just fine. that's when words had an exact meaning. i like that. it helps me understand what you mean. :cool:

noah counte 7. October 2008, 13:07

:lol: I fall somewhere inbetween. Words have meaning, but the writer can't always count on the reader to understand the meaning that that he or see intends to convey when stringing a particular group of words together.

edwardpiercy 7. October 2008, 14:22

I have CNN on and Palin is speaking in Florida and she just mentioned something about when they were there last month and had "visited the villages."

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

good one ed, i really did laugh out loud.

boy, she is under a microscope now.... why would anyone want to be president anyway?

edwardpiercy 7. October 2008, 16:01

I would rather be Vice President. All you have to do is travel around and go to funerals. Kinda like a funeral home director.

noah counte 7. October 2008, 16:05

Our village would like a visit from Palin. We might be able to coax grandma and grandpa out of the yurt for an event like that.

edwardpiercy 7. October 2008, 16:12

:lol: Out of the yurt...

noah counte 7. October 2008, 16:28

It's their world. They've become shut ins. You know, in a sort of surrounded-by-yakhide-with-no-real-door kinda way.

ellinidata 7. October 2008, 16:46

what a great idea!
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

:lol:

I_ArtMan 7. October 2008, 20:34

i should pretend i am for mccain and then my grand-children will visit?

boy, that was cute meli. thanks for sharing :heart:

ellinidata 8. October 2008, 01:01

:heart:

Write a comment

You must be logged in to write a comment. If you're not a registered member, please sign up.

Download Opera, the fastest and most secure browser
December 2009
M T W T F S S
November 2009January 2010
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31