OH, NO! WHAT A WASTE!” called out my wife when I stuck my head
into her study with the news that Governor Romney’s choice for vice
president was Paul Ryan. “What do you mean?” I demanded. After all,
I’d been listening for years to her singing the praises of the
Badger State Brain. “He’s needed in the House,” she said. “Well,”
replied I, “he’s only going over to the Senate.” This is
when she, who has already forgotten more about politics than I’ll
ever know, declared: “Now don’t you try your constitutional tricks
on me.”
It’s no longer exactly news that the vice president isn’t
necessarily part of the executive branch. This is owing to Vice
President Cheney. He tried to squirm out of handing over documents
that Congressman Henry Waxman wanted by asserting that the vice
president was part of the legislative branch. Cheney pointed out
that the only duty the Constitution gave him, absent the death or
departure of the president, was to serve as president of the
Senate. So a “legislative officer” was what claimed to be, and, as
such, he wasn’t covered by the executive order Waxman was
waving.
“The political backlash engendered by this position led Cheney’s
office to withdraw to the more defensible position that the Office
of the Vice President, like the Office of the President, was not an
‘agency’ for purposes of the statute,” is the way one sage, Glenn
Harlan Reynolds, writing in the Northwestern University Law
Review, summarizes the denouement. Reynolds notes, however,
that Cheney’s spokesmen never repudiated the earlier position. He
goes on to say that he himself believes that “the positioning of
the Vice Presidency within the legislative branch—or, at any rate,
outside the executive—may be appropriate.”
The only catch, Reynolds writes, is that such a reading would
“render Cheney’s role within the Bush Administration, as well as
the modern notion of Vice Presidents as junior versions of the
commander-in-chief, unconstitutional.” This appears to be a
reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, which
establishes that “no Person holding any Office under the United
States” shall be a member of either house of Congress. One could
call it the “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too” clause,
though it is more likely to be discussed by sophisticates under the
rubric of separated powers.
It bothered the Founders of America from the beginning. Elbridge
Gerry of Massachusetts was against having a vice president at all
(“We might as well put the President himself at the head of the
Legislature,” he carped). He was not, however, so against the idea
when he himself had the chance to become vice president (the
fifth). George Mason, as James Madison’s notes on the
constitutional convention record, feared the vice president would
prove “an encroachment on the rights of the Senate.” Roger Sherman
of Connecticut defended the idea of putting the vice president at
the head of the upper chamber. Otherwise, Madison quotes Sherman as
saying, “he would be without employment.”
When Senators McCain and Obama were considering whom to tap as
their running mates, Time magazine published a list of the
worst vice presidents in history. It started with Aaron Burr. His
president, Jefferson, had little use for him, though Burr is
recorded by historians as having been a masterful president of the
Senate, even if he could not vote save to break a tie, which he did
three times.* Burr won plaudits presiding over the Senate trial of
the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached, Samuel Chase, who
was tried essentially for issuing from the bench rulings of which
Jefferson didn’t approve.**
It’s hard
to say what turn history would have taken had Burr found a
modus vivendi with Jefferson. In the event, Burr tried to
get out of the vice presidency by running for governor of New York,
only to be sullied by the trash-talking of Alexander Hamilton, whom
he slew in a duel, becoming the only vice president to be, while in
office, charged with murder. Burr was never tried for the crime
(there are those of us who believe he’d have had to be impeached
first).
Time’s list of the worst vice presidents also includes
Lincoln’s first, Hannibal Hamlin. It’s not that the man from Maine
lacked for noble sentiments. His state had been created by the
Missouri Compromise, and he was a committed advocate of African
American soldiers, rights, and emancipation. Yet he spent his vice
presidency complaining about its uselessness (he called it a
“nullity” and likened it to the “fifth wheel of a coach”). Hamlin
did manage to ban liquor in the Senate, an achievement that can be
adjudged counterproductive. Time notes that Hamlin’s
direct contribution to the war effort was serving in the Coast
Guard as a cook.
TODAY IT IS UNLIKELY ONE WOULD FIND a sitting vice president
scrubbing pots in the galley of some cutter, though come to think
of it, such a duty would not be a bad assignment for, say, Joseph
Biden. It certainly seems a more responsible role than being the
vice presidential buffoon. Yet it may be President Obama
wants Biden to play the buffoon so as to cast the
Community-organizer-turned-president in a more substantive light.
It may be that President Obama will decide to keep Biden as veep,
simply because he makes a better jester than Hillary Clinton.
It is, in any event, hard to imagine the buffoon being played by
Paul Ryan, who won his leadership in the budget debate by a
combination of brains, work, and executive ability (and who is no
doubt more prudent with his bow and arrow than Vice President
Cheney was with his shotgun). One could almost be tempted to
suggest that, should Messrs. Romney and Ryan prevail in November,
the about-to-become exchairman of the House budget committee be
given a formal role in respect of fiscal and monetary policy.
Would that make a Vice President Ryan unconstitutional, as
Professor Reynolds warned could be the case with Vice President
Cheney? After all, a vice president—unlike, say, a cabinet
secretary or a general— can’t be fired by the president. He can’t,
technically, be told what to do. He doesn’t even report to the
president. I like the way Sarah Palin put it when, four years ago,
she was asked about the odd role of the vice president. She
defended the Founding Fathers as “very wise” in “allowing through
the Constitution much flexibility” in the vice presidency.*** They
were of a similar mind to my wife. They wouldn’t have wanted a man
like Paul Ryan to go to waste.
—————————————
* The record was set by Vice President Adams, who, according to the
Senate’s website, broke 29.
** He was acquitted.
*** The quotes from Palin, like those from Roger Sherman,
Elbridge Gerry, and George Mason herein, are in my
The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide.
Aristocat| 10.26.12 @ 8:29AM
The Constitution says the Vice President is President of the Senate...Much like the Speaker of the House....Paul Ryan should spend all of his time presiding over the Senate, helping steer the Romney agenda thru that august body. The problem is that Senators don't like to be presided over, especially by someone who was a mere House member. That is why it would have been better to choose a Senator like Rubio. But since we are where we are, let Mr.Ryan fulfill his constitutional obligation as President of the Senate, and many good things will happen if he sticks to it.
TLP| 10.26.12 @ 9:52AM
The Contest is at Wednesday's Column - The Point Of Criticism.
It's the last entry for that day, so you might need to hit the "Previous" thingy.
MacWell™| 10.27.12 @ 1:28PM
I agree, this may turn out as a blessing in disguise for America. Vice President elect Ryan could prove to be just what the doctor ordered. If we the people take back control of our Congress in November, America could be out of debt within 15 years. If we become controllers of oil and nat gas, become energy independent and get people working again and off the government dole, we would have many times more resources to help those in need. If President elect Romney is allowed to put, in force, his whole agenda by getting a reasonable Congress, America would be back where she belongs in no time. Our enemies will see our real strength is in our people, our freedom to become whatever we want. When the world sees that America doesn't want to become your enemy, we don't want to take over your wealth, or rape your daughters, or assault your religion, the people, who just wish to live in peace, raise their families, and give their children a chance to become a little better, will demand it from their governments.
America has a better way of life, that's not brag, it's just a fact.
C Smith | 10.27.12 @ 2:01PM
Have been concerned regarding the potential complicity of the current administration in tragic events in Benghazi. Yet, realized that there are many questions for which I had no answer. The following link addresses many questions, While not vetting the validity of the conclusions and being diametrically opposed to the humanist source, still realize that "truth is truth regless of the source" (if it is indeed truth):
http://www.theatheistconservat.....r-stevens/
"What is the... truth that the Obama administration is trying to conceal about the tragic events in Benghazi, when the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were murdered in an Islamic terrorist attack"?
goldminor| 10.27.12 @ 3:13PM
Perhaps, it might be time to bring back a separate vote for VP. The two parties would probably not like this, because of the extra campaigning; but it could liven up the election cycle and inspire more people to vote.
Sapientia| 10.27.12 @ 9:00PM
The VPOTUS can be a very powerful member of both Congress and the Administration. The position has been compared to a warm bucket of bodily fluid.
It will take a herculean effort to reduce entitlement spending, as the entrenched community organizers and social workers of America have a vested interest.
VP Ryan could take the message to the people, and going over the heads of the MSM on 6th Avenue.
The VP also has the lackluster job of standing in for the POTUS, going to funerals and factory openings.
VP Cheney wanted to run the White house, Biden is too dangerous to be in charge of anything.