22/10: Some Straight Talk on the VP, the Constitution, and American Political History
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
According to Harry Reid and a host of pseudo-experts on American history, Sarah Palin "obviously knows absolutely nothing about our Constitution or our country."
Who is the ignorant buffoon in this instance? Harry Reid, actually, and all the smug but misinformed "know-it-alls" who have been laughing up their sleeves all day.
The Constitution of the United States authorizes the vice president to perform two functions:
1. to assume the powers and duties of the office of chief executive in case the president finds himself incapable of discharging his appointed duties.
2. to preside over the Senate.
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.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
First of all, please note that this explanation of vice presidential duties comes in Article I, which describes the nature of the legislative branch (the executive is detailed in Article II, the judiciary in Article III). While Article II explains the election of the vice president, and his prescribed role as successor to an incapacitated president, it is Article I that actually articulates the one regular duty of the vice president, presiding over the Senate, which includes several enumerated functions (including breaking tie votes in the Upper Chamber).
Indeed, the framers developed the position of vice president as something of an afterthought, creating the second executive office in early September during the latter weeks of the four-month deliberations that produced the Constitution of the United States in 1787. But, once settled on a second national office, the framers envisioned the vice president as an "ex-officio President of the Senate." Undoubtedly, they had in mind the contemporary lieutenant governors of various states, elected to state-wide office but charged with presiding over their respective legislatures.
Some framers argued on 7 September that the installation of an executive officer, empowered to preside over the proceedings of the Upper House, dangerously diluted the power of the legislative branch. Notwithstanding, the Convention voted to install the vice president despite those fears regarding an inappropriate intermingling of divided powers.
Moreover, the framers clearly expected the vice president to actually fulfill the role of ex-officio president, providing for a temporary replacement selected from the upper body in case of the vice president's absence. Significantly, the framers also provided for an extraordinary instance in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would replace the vice president as presiding officer (during an impeachment trial). This protocol for automatic recusation also affirms the expectation that the vice president would chair the Senate under normal circumstances.
The first vice president, John Adams, seemed to harbor no doubts about his role as president of the Senate and at times even understood his obligation to the legislative as superior to the executive.
From the Senate historian:
Shortly after taking office, he wrote to his friend and supporter Benjamin Lincoln, "The Constitution has instituted two great offices . . . and the nation at large has created two officers: one who is the first of the two . . . is placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislative." The following year, he informed another correspondent that the office of vice president "is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative."
Early on, Adams regularly lectured the Senate and directed the proceedings in a manner his opponents disdained as quite partisan. Eventually, the Senate itself instituted a rule (not a law or a Constitutional amendment) that prohibited the vice president from participating in debate. It was after this insult, that Adams bitterly offered his famous quote concerning the vice presidency: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams as the second vice president, happily affirmed the rule of silence, as the Sage of Monticello was famously shy about public speaking.
Therefore, the tradition of a silent vice president and one estranged from the Senate is a long one, but it is not rooted in the Constitution.
How does Joe Biden do as a constitutional scholar?
During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis, Joe Biden stated unequivocally:
"The idea he [Dick Cheney] doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Actually, nobody should understand that because it is wrong. Remember Article I defines the role of the legislative branch.
More Biden: "And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit."
Actually, the Constitution is not explicit about any of this, and it does not even hint at any advisory role to the president (although that is not an illogical inference). However, the Constitution says nothing about limiting the veep's role as chair of the Senate to merely instances of a tie vote. Wrong again.
More Biden: "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous. "
Perhaps bizarre to Biden--and a good opportunity to push a conspiracy theory near and dear to the hearts of the "nutroots"--but not so historically and/or constitutionally unorthodox (Jefferson too espoused this theory). Maybe if President Lincoln could have gotten on TV back during the early 1790s and explained it to the nation, Biden would enjoy a better understanding of this murky reality: the framers confusingly created the vice president with one foot in the two separate branches of government.
In truth, none of this history matters all that much. The nature of the vice presidency is pretty well defined at this point by tradition, history, and modern expectations. However, loud-mouth critics who want to pile on Sarah Palin for her "lack of understanding" regarding American history and the Constitution ought to crack a book before they start spewing.
Who is the ignorant buffoon in this instance? Harry Reid, actually, and all the smug but misinformed "know-it-alls" who have been laughing up their sleeves all day.
The Constitution of the United States authorizes the vice president to perform two functions:
1. to assume the powers and duties of the office of chief executive in case the president finds himself incapable of discharging his appointed duties.
2. to preside over the Senate.
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.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
First of all, please note that this explanation of vice presidential duties comes in Article I, which describes the nature of the legislative branch (the executive is detailed in Article II, the judiciary in Article III). While Article II explains the election of the vice president, and his prescribed role as successor to an incapacitated president, it is Article I that actually articulates the one regular duty of the vice president, presiding over the Senate, which includes several enumerated functions (including breaking tie votes in the Upper Chamber).
Indeed, the framers developed the position of vice president as something of an afterthought, creating the second executive office in early September during the latter weeks of the four-month deliberations that produced the Constitution of the United States in 1787. But, once settled on a second national office, the framers envisioned the vice president as an "ex-officio President of the Senate." Undoubtedly, they had in mind the contemporary lieutenant governors of various states, elected to state-wide office but charged with presiding over their respective legislatures.
Some framers argued on 7 September that the installation of an executive officer, empowered to preside over the proceedings of the Upper House, dangerously diluted the power of the legislative branch. Notwithstanding, the Convention voted to install the vice president despite those fears regarding an inappropriate intermingling of divided powers.
Moreover, the framers clearly expected the vice president to actually fulfill the role of ex-officio president, providing for a temporary replacement selected from the upper body in case of the vice president's absence. Significantly, the framers also provided for an extraordinary instance in which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would replace the vice president as presiding officer (during an impeachment trial). This protocol for automatic recusation also affirms the expectation that the vice president would chair the Senate under normal circumstances.
The first vice president, John Adams, seemed to harbor no doubts about his role as president of the Senate and at times even understood his obligation to the legislative as superior to the executive.
From the Senate historian:
Shortly after taking office, he wrote to his friend and supporter Benjamin Lincoln, "The Constitution has instituted two great offices . . . and the nation at large has created two officers: one who is the first of the two . . . is placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislative." The following year, he informed another correspondent that the office of vice president "is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative."
Early on, Adams regularly lectured the Senate and directed the proceedings in a manner his opponents disdained as quite partisan. Eventually, the Senate itself instituted a rule (not a law or a Constitutional amendment) that prohibited the vice president from participating in debate. It was after this insult, that Adams bitterly offered his famous quote concerning the vice presidency: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams as the second vice president, happily affirmed the rule of silence, as the Sage of Monticello was famously shy about public speaking.
Therefore, the tradition of a silent vice president and one estranged from the Senate is a long one, but it is not rooted in the Constitution.
How does Joe Biden do as a constitutional scholar?
During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis, Joe Biden stated unequivocally:
"The idea he [Dick Cheney] doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Actually, nobody should understand that because it is wrong. Remember Article I defines the role of the legislative branch.
More Biden: "And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit."
Actually, the Constitution is not explicit about any of this, and it does not even hint at any advisory role to the president (although that is not an illogical inference). However, the Constitution says nothing about limiting the veep's role as chair of the Senate to merely instances of a tie vote. Wrong again.
More Biden: "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous. "
Perhaps bizarre to Biden--and a good opportunity to push a conspiracy theory near and dear to the hearts of the "nutroots"--but not so historically and/or constitutionally unorthodox (Jefferson too espoused this theory). Maybe if President Lincoln could have gotten on TV back during the early 1790s and explained it to the nation, Biden would enjoy a better understanding of this murky reality: the framers confusingly created the vice president with one foot in the two separate branches of government.
In truth, none of this history matters all that much. The nature of the vice presidency is pretty well defined at this point by tradition, history, and modern expectations. However, loud-mouth critics who want to pile on Sarah Palin for her "lack of understanding" regarding American history and the Constitution ought to crack a book before they start spewing.
Paul Holder wrote: