Vice-President not part of the executive branch?

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
By Julia Malone, Cox Newspapers | June 22, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Dick Cheney, who has wielded extraordinary executive power as he transformed the image of the vice presidency, is asserting that his office is not actually part of the executive branch.

In a simmering dispute with the National Archives that heated up yesterday, Cheney has long maintained that he does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because his office is part of the Legislature.

Cheney, whose single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate, holds that the vice president's office is not an "entity within the executive branch" and therefore not subject to annual reporting or periodic on-site inspections under the 1995 executive order, which President Bush updated four years ago.

The vice president has been refusing to cooperate with the National Archives office assigned to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.

"We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," said Lea Anne McBride, vice presidential spokeswoman.

Democrats took the opposite view. Henry A. Waxman, House Oversight Committee chairman, in a letter posted on the Internet yesterday, told Cheney it was "irresponsible" to reject security oversight.

"Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information," the California Democrat wrote.

He cited the conviction of former top Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying in the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

Waxman said he had learned that Cheney's office, in a move that "could be construed as retaliation," had tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office, the division of the National Archives set up to enforce safeguards for classified information in executive agencies.

Waxman said the oversight office head told congressional investigators the vice president's staff had not been successful.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, when asked about Cheney's assertion that his office is part of the legislative branch, quipped, "I always thought that he was president of this administration."
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
Click to expand...

Article I …

Section 3. ….


…
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.


On this I am not 100% certain, but I think he(the VP) is also paid by the Senate. And I am pretty sure that the VP also swears the Senators in to office.

Furthermore since the VP's only Constitutionally specified function is to be President of the Senate and cast tie breaking votes in that body, it would seem that he really is part of the legislative branch. The fact that the VP now functions as a co-President nowadays is nothing more than the personal preference of the President he serves under.

In the past, most VPs had little, if anything, to do with the executive branch. VPs didn't attend Cabinet meetings for, literally, centuries. I believe Eisenhower was the first to bring his VP, Nixon, into close association with the executive branch and it has been common since then. But it doesn't really mean the VP is associated with the executive branch.

Sure, there are laws that place the VP on several executive councils, like the National Security Council, but that's necessary because the VP needs to be able to smoothly assume his only other function, to become President if circumstances warrant it.

In 1791, Vice President John Adams attended a Cabinet meeting. No other Vice President did so until 1918. That year, President Wilson asked Vice President Marshall to preside over the Cabinet while Wilson attended the Paris Peace Conference that followed World War I. After Wilson returned home, Marshall was again excluded.

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Well, here are my thoughts. Cheney is most definitely a member of the executive branch. What I think the U.S. Constitution has done, however, is to take a member of the Executive branch and give them a very limited, perhaps ceremonial role in the Senate of acting as the tie breaker and counting ballots. I am not so sure such a limited role would qualify as being a member of the legislative branch much less the senate.

However, let's avoid the red herring of whether or not the VP is a member of the legislative branch. The question is whether or not he is a member of the executive? Keep in mind, perhaps the correct answer he is a member of both, in which case Cheney would be wrong and right.

Article I to the U.S. Constitution dictates the manner in which members of the Senate and House are elected. Both houses constitute our "legislature," and Article I addresses and enumerates the powers of the legislature and how its members are chosen, the number of years they serve, sets the minimum qualifications for being a member of the Senate/House, states they are to be compensated and establishes procedures for a members early removal. The VP does not have the discretion to vote as regularly and often as an elected member of the senate. Yet, there is no mention within Article I of how the VP is elected, the length of his term of service, whether or not he is to be compensated, the qualifications for serving as VP, or how the VP is removed. All of these questions are reserved to Article II, the executive branch.

Article II says the VP is to be elected with the president, and serve a fixed term of four years. So Article II defines the term of service for the VP, it says he can be removed by impeachment, although achieved by a subsequent amendment, Article II, by amendment, establishes minimum requirements for being elected VP (But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Article II, by way of amendment, dictates the day in which the VP's term, ALONG WITH the President, terminates. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Observe the VP's day of termination does not coincide with the other members of the legislature.

If a VP were to die while in office, the power to replace a new VP is left to the executive branch, as opposed to the Senate or the legislature. Indeed it would seem peculiar, if not odd, for the President to pick a member of the legislature to serve in the legislature. In fact, this would violate our understanding of the separation of powers. Yet, the VP is chosen by the president and confirmed by a vote in both houses, tantamount to the procedure of ALL cabinet members chosen by the president to serve in the executive branch. Section 2. 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.


I think this evidence overwhelmingly suggests the VP is a member of the executive branch.
 
#3
#3
I think Cheney's argument is akin to debating the meaning of the word "is" as another member of the Exec Branch did.

It is a technicality
 
#6
#6
Teddyhead said:
:eek:hmy: :no:
Click to expand...

*Coughs*

I am fishing.....

2006-tracker-pro-team-170-tx-bass-fishing-boat-and-trailer.jpg
 
#7
#7
Kind of odd how one minute Cheney claims Executive Privilege to protect himself from divulging meeting on oil companies, etc. and then suddenly he uses the exact opposite argument when the flipside favors him. If he is part of the Legislative Branch, I say his pay be cut, he be removed from his office by the Legislature, etc. If he throws himself into the body that is majority Dem, he's set himself up for a world of hurt. They can pick him apart and gather all sorts of info since he is "one of them".
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
Kind of odd how one minute Cheney claims Executive Privilege to protect himself from divulging meeting on oil companies, etc. and then suddenly he uses the exact opposite argument when the flipside favors him. If he is part of the Legislative Branch, I say his pay be cut, he be removed from his office by the Legislature, etc. If he throws himself into the body that is majority Dem, he's set himself up for a world of hurt. They can pick him apart and gather all sorts of info since he is "one of them".
Click to expand...

I would really like the executive privilege argument from the energy meetings to be explained in this new context. Those meetings were held between the VP and unknown members of the private sector (as well as government employees I am sure). The president was not involved in those meetings, although I'm sure he sanctioned them. Is it legit to claim executive privilege to not divulge details of a meeting you organized and led when you are not a member of the executive branch? Surely it isn't enough that the president knew about and sanctioned the meetings....

Will he be forced to answer this question????
 
#9
#9
TennTradition said:
I would really like the executive privilege argument from the energy meetings to be explained in this new context. Those meetings were held between the VP and unknown members of the private sector (as well as government employees I am sure). The president was not involved in those meetings, although I'm sure he sanctioned them. Is it legit to claim executive privilege to not divulge details of a meeting you organized and led when you are not a member of the executive branch? Surely it isn't enough that the president knew about and sanctioned the meetings....

Will he be forced to answer this question????
Click to expand...

:unsure: :no:
 
#10
#10
it's a sticky wicket for sure, and Cheney has backed himself into a corner with this one. although I am reminded of the time Bill Clinton claimed that because we had troops on the ground in combat (Kosovo, I think) that he was considered to be on "active duty" status and thus couldn't be bothered by legal proceedings in a civilian court.

my recollection on that is a bit fuzzy, though. but I do remember him claiming something absurd like that.
 
#12
#12
I am so tired of Cheney's crap. The interesting thing is that most of congress doesn't seem to be too up in arms about it. Are they wrapped up in internal battles within the houses of congress right now or what?
 
#13
#13
Everyone should read the series of articles the Washington Post ran on Cheney this week. They are as good a profile of the man as I have seen.
 
#14
#14
Well let's see. Claiming that he's not in the Executive Branch didn't work so let's revert back to "Executive Privilege"!!!! If at first you don't succeed keep looking for loopholes.
 
#15
#15
there seems to be some semantic wrangling going on regarding whether or not the offices of the President and VP are agencies of the Executive branch.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other except to say that both sides are setting dangerous precedents for future administrations' relationships with their congresses.
 
#16
#16
I'd like to see the Bush-friendly SCOTUS decide this. They might be placed in an uncomfortable position on this. Can you tie someone from another branch to the Presidential election? Cheney could put himself into the hands of Harry Reid if he wants to go that way.
 
#18
#18
hatvol96 said:
Everyone should read the series of articles the Washington Post ran on Cheney this week. They are as good a profile of the man as I have seen.
Click to expand...

I have read the first part, and I think it is enough for me to second that. Very interesting reading.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top