GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Cheney's words show he counts self part of executive branch

• 79473
  

  good news: Cheney is now correct.

  goshByGolly Posted June 8, 2009 7:06 AM
• 28411
  

  The Democrats in Congress probably should cut off funding to the VP's Office. After all it seems short-sighted to cut funding for an office they say they hope to win. But it looks like they are trying to figure out a way to pull out a defeat from the jaws of victory again give the White House back to the Republicans.

  Dan Posted July 13, 2007 4:07 PM
• 27842
  

  Dan,

  I agree. This VP issue has bothered me so I did some basic research to the very beginning of our government. Why would the founding fathers create such a lunatic office as VP the way it was actually structured in the Constitution. How could they get this issue so wrong.

  I believe to understand this office you have to examine this from an interesting historical perspective. The Virginian George Washington was out first President and never served a day in the Continental Congress. His VP was John Adams of the "sit down John" fame of the musical 1776 and who was an intense legislator. Adams main hobby throughout his life being a good Yankee from Boston was sticking it to Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison at every opportunity.

  John Adams two terms as Vice President were frustrating experiences for a man of his vigor, intellect, and vanity. He frequently complained to his wife Abigail, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." He must have really hated these Virginians and I know from reading their writings that they returned the favor.

  So, in my humble opinion, the creation of the VP position was Virginian payback meant to keep the Yankee Johns Adams safely tucked away for eight years doing nothing but breaking ties in the Senate and out of Washington's Executive wig. :-)) And because of John Adams's miserable relationship with these Virginians we have a system of government where a VP is not fish and not foul.

  Therefore, as you argue Dan he isn't part of the Executive branch, he has no Executive Branch privilege and his denial of Congressional oversight and subpoenas can be considered a high crime and misdeameanor. Likewise he has no right whatsoever to interfere with the regulatory and enforcement missions of the US Government. Taking this position to the extreme I would believe it is a Legislative right to cut the VP office down to the VP and one continental era clerk to make sure the VP's wig stays powdered and that the gunpowder is dry in case he wants to hunt more judges-- no, I mean go huntng with more judges.

  As they say in Colonial times-- Cheers,

  HR Specialist Posted July 6, 2007 3:45 PM
• 27823
  

  HR Specialist: You are correct that the VP is not a member of the legislative branch like the Library of Congress, Architect of the Capital, Capital Hill Police or GAO. He is also not a member of the Executive Branch like the OMB, the Justice Department or the Department of the Interior. As the White House implies, he is a separate constitutional officer. For example, in response to your question of whether a sitting President can remove a VP-fire the VP before election time; the constitution assigns the power of impeachment to the Senate. The President has no authority to regulate the office of Vice President. As the President cannot "fire" the VP, can also not regulate the VPs, constitutionally derived powers. Although the President can choose to enhance the VP's (or most anyone's) role in his administration does that make the Vice President subject to the edits of the President? Does he work for the President? The answer is no. As Brad says, the Vice Presidency is "sort of like a twig". I don't think that it is illogical. Reality is not merely black and white but contains many shades of gray.

  Dan Posted July 6, 2007 11:03 AM
• 27755
  

  A very nice lesson on Logic. But reality is reality. Unlike a parliamentary system of government where Executive officers and elected legislative representatives can be the same people and get all mixed up, in our system of government as outlined in the US Constitution there are 3 branches of government as outlined in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the US Constitution.

  We can all assume that the VP is not part of the Judicial Branch. The confusion occurs because he is the figurehead leader of the Senate and breaks ties on 50/50 splits. I guess the founding fathers wanted to give the VP something to do. In no other way can one consider the VP a part of the Legislative branch like the Library of Congress, Architect of the Capital, Capital Hill Police or GAO.

  That leaves only one choice left-- the Executive Branch. It would be an interesting constitutional question of whether a sitting President can remove a VP-fire the VP before election time. Are we electing a President who has a running mate deputy called a VP or electing a package of Pres. and VP that must stick together for 4 years? In Europe there isn't a question that a Prime Minister can remove his deputy at will.

  In any case- it is illogical to surmise that the VP belongs anywhere but in the Executive branch of government. These two officers are elected together in one package and leave office together. The role of the VP- except as tie breaker in the Senate, is completely dictated by the President-- the VP can be a ribbon cutter or actually run the government like our current VP.

  HR Specialist Posted July 5, 2007 3:26 PM
• 27609
  

  Rick, I think you may indeed be viewing the matter too simplistically. Wikipedia describes that:"..in logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises. Wikipedia quotes Stephen Barker's explanation in The Elements of Logic: 'If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most case-iron rigor'. In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove."

  Likewise, your argument purports to prove illegal acts on the part of the Vice President. Whether your argument is true or not, the it seems to me that the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch, regardless of what VP Cheney may have represented in the past. Further more, separation of the Vice President's office from the Executive Branch could potentially be vital to the protection of representative democracy in this country. There have been two cases of Presidents being impeached and another resignation when impeachment appeared imminent. In a case such as an impeachment, the country's best interest would more likely be served by a Vice President who recognizes a separate constitutional role, rather than one who considers them self "part of the Executive Branch".

  Dan Posted July 3, 2007 8:36 PM
• 27562
  

  I guess I view this from a very simplistic standpoint. If a President of a company issues a policy against sexual harassment, then exempts himself, or one of his staff, from compliance with the policy, it would be reasonable to believe that the reason for exempting himself or his staff was because he or one of his staff was sexually harassing someone.

  For contemplation: Executive Order 12958, as amended by Executive Order 13292, Sec. 1.7, titled "Classification Prohibitions and Limitations", paragraph (a) states: "(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security."

  Rick Posted July 3, 2007 12:22 PM
• 27331
  

  Such nonsense and all because of a total lack of respect for the Constitution of the United States and its critically important separation of powers. A former President George decided to honor and respect the new order by not accepting the offered kingship. He set the standard for the Republic. If you want to see what happens when Mr. Cheney's approach goes to the extreme just see how President Putin reacts to events in his Mother Russia.

  Our system is messy and sometimes you have to accept a decision you disagree with as the will of the People. Otherwise, remind me again why our founding fathers fought a revolution against an English George from across the pond.

  HR Specialist

  HR Specialist Posted July 3, 2007 8:13 AM
• 27275
  

  It has been a while, but if I remember correctly the VP is not in the executive or the legislative branch. Maybe rather than belonging to a particular branch, the VP is sort of like a twig.

  Brad Posted July 2, 2007 4:38 PM
• 27267
  

  Flip-flopper.

  Federal employee Posted July 2, 2007 1:27 PM
• 27236
  

  If I were in the Executive or Judicial branch, I wouldn't want Cheney either.

  nathan wolfson Posted July 2, 2007 9:08 AM
• 27108
  

  Interesting. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that VP Cheney is impeached for his alleged duplicity, and Nancy Pelosi becomes VP.

  Would Nancy Pelosi as VP be subject to all of the edits, policies and Executive Orders of President Bush? Or in that case, would the Office of the Vice President be considered a separate, constitutional office?

  Dan Posted June 29, 2007 2:34 PM