Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
right, thats my point. i cant see how that would be unconstitutional and having an office that is elected like an exective, titled like an executive and is tied so much to the chief executive be part of the legislative branch. i dont think you have to be a strict constructionist to see that it walks like an duck and quacks like a duck
because the duties of the vice president are written into the constitution as part of the legislative branch. let's just say that the constitution and the writers of the federalist papers did not hold a high opinion of the office of vice president. remember, the original holder of that office was for the person who came in second in the electoral college and was to be the "president of the senate". . .that's how you end up with thomas jefferson as john adams' vice president. vp's were not considered to part of a ticket, since the idea of political parties was one not held by the authors of the constitution. other than noting that the vp is to succeed the president should the president die in office, the DUTIES of the vp are listed in article 1, which deals with the legislature.
but whatever. . .my original point was to note that biden's interpretation of the constitution about the vp was not terribly accurate. . .the role and duties of the VP are in article 1. even the washington post got
it. biden is simply wrong on the constitutional role and underpinnings of the vp.
what we are really arguing about is the abuse of power by the vp to use the protections afforded legislative offices while making executive policies. . .which, as the wapo article notes, as does the law review article, is a potential violation of the separation of powers by delegating an executive power to a legislative official. which i don't necessarily disagree with you on.
