Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure you've heard about this by now. According to a letter sent by Rep. Henry Waxman to the Vice President, Cheney's office has for the last 4 years refused to allow routine office inspections regarding the handling of classified documents from the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), claiming not to be a part of the executive branch. A long excerpt from that letter below the fold:
In2004, the Archives notified your office that it would conduct an on-site inspection of the Office of the Vice President, as authorized by the executive order. According to the National Archives, your staff blocked this inspection. Your office informed the Archives that it was not bound by the executive order applicable to all other executive branch entities and therefore would not permit the Archives to conduct an inspection of the procedures and facilities used by the Office of the Vice President to safeguard classified national security information.In 2001 and 2002, your office had provided the National Archives with data on its classification and declassification activities, as required by the executive order. Your office ceased to provide this information in 2003, and has refused to provide it in each year since. No rationale for this change in policy was provided to the Archives at that time.
In June 2006, the Director of the lnformation Security Oversight Office, J. William Leonard, wrote to your Chief of Staff, David Addington, to contest your claim that the Office of the Vice President is not subject to the President's executive order. According to Mr. Leonard's letter, your position was that your office "does not believe it is included in the definition of 'agency' as set forth in the Order" and "does not consider itself an 'entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."'...
Mr. Leonard also argued that a consideration of 'þolicy implications" supported the position that the order applies to the Office of the Vice President. According to Mr. Leonard: "If the OVP is not considered an entity within the executive branch, I am concerned that this could impede access to classified information by OVP staff in that such access would be considered a disclosure outside the executive branch."
That last part is quite important. If the Office of the Vice President is not an entity within the executive branch (what on earth else could it be?) then that means Cheney doesn't get to claim executive privilege. Yet he does. He went all the way to the Supreme Court asserting executive privilege to withhold the identities of his energy task force. Indeed, if he seriously wants to assert that his office is not an entity of the executive branch, the implications are vast and he isn't going to like all of them. It's just a textbook situation of rank hypocrisy and making whatever argument is necessary to defend his current whims, consistency and rationality be damned.
Here's another thing I think this situation demonstrates: how weak Bush is compared to Cheney in terms of who's really in control of White House policy. Bush's office complies with the law and the inspections. His office does not make such absurd claims, only the VP does. According to several reports, Bush's legal counsel has made clear that the VP's office is wrong. Bush could, and should, simply order the VP's office to comply with the law. The fact that he doesn't tells you where the real power lies, or at the very least, how reluctant Bush is to reign in Cheney.
I love Orin Kerr's post about this at Volokh. He links to an article about it but says it's from The Onion. That gives you some idea just how ridiculous Cheney's argument is; it's so ridiculous that one could mistake it for a parody.
Comments
Hey, Ed, you're famous! I clicked on an article at Google news and your smiling face popped up. Normally I check the news and then your blog, and a few others, like afarensis, panda's thumb, and the like. But today, a surprise. Oh, yeah, can you cut out this "reign in" crap? It's "rein in."
cheers, Bob
Posted by: Bob Carroll | June 23, 2007 10:42 AM
Hey, Ed, you're famous! I clicked on an article at Google news and your smiling face popped up. Normally I check the news and then your blog, and a few others, like afarensis, panda's thumb, and the like. But today, a surprise. Oh, yeah, can you cut out this "reign in" crap? It's "rein in."
cheers, Bob
Posted by: Bob Carroll | June 23, 2007 10:43 AM
So Cheney won't cooperate with the requests of inspectors? What did the US do the last time it claimed an egomaniacal, tyrannical leader had refused to cooperate with inspectors? It's too bad the We The People can't invade Cheney's office, seize his assets, and throw him in jail. This Administration has been a complete disaster for this country.
Posted by: CTurner | June 23, 2007 10:43 AM
Herr: "UPDATE: My apologies -- this story is not in The Onion, but rather the New York Times. I regret the error."
*sigh*
Posted by: matthew | June 23, 2007 10:44 AM
sorry!
Posted by: Bob Carroll | June 23, 2007 10:45 AM
Did you hear that the new name for the Bush Administration is the "BUSH Mafioso"? Who ever came up with that was right on target!
Posted by: Pat Braddy | June 23, 2007 11:12 AM
NYSlimes. Yawn.
Posted by: jim masterson | June 23, 2007 11:39 AM
This entire administration has proven time and again that they feel themselves to be above the laws of the land the the constitution. If we are not very careful, we may find the next election being vacated in the interest of "National Good".
Posted by: Tom West | June 23, 2007 11:42 AM
Jim Masterson wrote:
The funny thing, I suspect, is that you actually think this is an argument and that it answers the accusations and defends Cheney's actions.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 11:48 AM
Holy crap, your going to have to seriously edit your post Ed: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/23/bush-claims-hes-not-part-of-the-executive-branch/
"Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said."
Posted by: matthew | June 23, 2007 12:09 PM
This Republican administration has determined that they do not ever have to obey the laws of this country as established by the constitution. As Bush said "It's just a Goddam piece of paper" !!! And VP Chaney is even worse than G W Bush..Both should have been impeached long ago.....
Posted by: George M. Kesselring, Major USAF Retired | June 23, 2007 12:22 PM
Holy cow. I just looked up the full text of executive order 12958. Here is the relevant definition:
If they come into possession of classified information - and those in both the President's office and the Vice President's office obviously do - then they're covered under this provision. Even for the Bush administration, this is pretty craven and absurd.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 12:26 PM
The best thing one might be able to say about the Bush administration is: They don't know better.
Frankly, I am convinced they don't care what anyone thinks. So, why don't we just ignore that collection of slugs, learn from them in hindsight and make damn sure we describe any future neocon religious right wing BS as: "Bush League Ineptness", as in: "How can you propose that sort of 'Bush League Ineptness', haven't we already suffered enough at the hands of your right wing idols...???"
grin
Posted by: vic w. | June 23, 2007 12:26 PM
The US Government, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush are War Criminals and America simply can't face it.
Public Criminal Trials and Public Hangings are needed.
Our US Government is anti-human beings and uncivilized.
They are creating Terrorist Retaliations.
like 9/11 and Oklahoma City!
We all live in a glass house and our government sociopaths are out throwing stones everywhere.
We are living in America's Hideous Epoch.
What dirty rotten SOB decides collateral damage is okay for them, but not okay for the retaliators..?
Our Great American Dream
Criminal Indictments, prosecutions, and Public Hangings of the lying neoCon war criminals on the front lawn of the White House.
Followed by Dancing in the streets.
Only This would Mark the End of America's Hideous Epoch!
To me this IS the Great American Dream!
Posted by: Rich Pizzo | June 23, 2007 12:35 PM
I think he is planning a coup
Posted by: John Baldoni | June 23, 2007 12:37 PM
Cheney not only has a bad heart disposition, but like Custer a bad disposition of the gonads and like Ashcroft may be of the gall bladder and being a number one hypocrite all around. The man cannot even handle a gun let alone his other less then three inch pistol that cannot cut the muster. All he is good for is to figure out how to stay out of the draft, get five deferments, and send others to go fight his war, while he and his cronies of the industrial-military-political-banking-security-petrochemical-pharmaceutical-organized religion and do gooder not for profit complex make money hand over fist. Pure simple malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoater, uncorrectable grab bagger, who sacrifice others with coercion, reckless abandon and impunity to promote his own, outward, hypocr5ite self image of good.
Posted by: Chui | June 23, 2007 12:44 PM
"Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said."
So the President has been complying with the Order in error? Since the order gives power to classify and declassify information "in performance of executive duties", is not Cheney acting as an entity in the executive branch when he classifies/declassifies material? So why is he not subject to the reporting requirement designed to ensure that those who classify/declassify material under this Order are protecting said materials? What a torture demented argument that Cheney is not part of the executive branch when his office is performing executive duties by classifying/declassifying information.
But Cheney's power-mongering is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog, and Bush simply acquiesces to whatever Cheney wants. But who would want the Office of the Vice President (regardless of who holds it) to be unaccountable for the ways it handles classified information? Bush supporters apparently think it's A-OK; we'll see how you all feel when it's a Democrat holding that office. Most likely we'll see a complete flip of position, just like their position that Clinton's perjury was a crime (even though the Grand Jury declined to indict) but Scooter Libby's perjury was not, even though his Grand Jury DID indict, and a jury convicted him.
Posted by: windrider | June 23, 2007 12:53 PM
The only duty of the vice president laid out by the Constitution is to act as president of the Senate, clearly a legislative function. I think the claim the Veep is a member of the legislative branch is defensible, however implausible.
The real problem may be in employing the Veep as a member of the executive, which seems to violate separation of powers. And while the Veep has acted as president of the Senate throughout our history, the practive of having the Veep actively engaged in the administration is very recent.
In any case, while one can argue defensibly, IMO, that the Veep is a member of the legislature, one can't then turn around and claim he has executive privilege.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 23, 2007 12:56 PM
Gerard-
Then please explain why the White House seems to think it doesn't apply to the President as well. And also why, if they really believed the argument you're making they also claim executive privilege for the VP's office. This is just plain dishonest and hypocritical no matter how you slice it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 1:04 PM
"Bush mafioso"? I love it!
Here's another-Lars Larson calls Dubya "Jorge Arbusto".
I can't wait till these thieves are out of Washinton, to make room for the next batch of thieves...
Posted by: artemis | June 23, 2007 1:04 PM
John Baldoni:
Possibly, but the question is how?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 23, 2007 1:06 PM
We Need a National Public Hanging Monument in Washington DC with a perpetual Swinging Noose and a list of all Government AdminisTraitors criminally prosecuted and hanged for treachery against the best and vital Interests of our American people, Constitution and Human Beings in general.
DICK Cheney should be the first to face Criminal Charges.
Posted by: Rich Pizzo | June 23, 2007 1:09 PM
Most Government Secrets are Government Crimes
Posted by: Rich Pizzo | June 23, 2007 1:12 PM
"Bush mafioso"? I love it!
Here's another-Lars Larson calls Dubya "Jorge Arbusto".
I can't wait till these thieves are out of Washinton, to make room for the next batch of thieves...
Posted by: artemis | June 23, 2007 1:12 PM
Ed:
I did say they couldn't then claim executive privilege. Read first, then reply :-)
Hypocritical and dishonest? Yes, sure, to the extent politics in general is hypocritical and dishonest. It's like loudly and piously proclaiming you're dealing with earmarks by wiping clean the other party's earmarks, and then loading up the new appropriations bills with your own.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 23, 2007 1:15 PM
The Bush Mafioso has a big case of arrogance and little or no morality. I can't image how much time it will take to reverse the world's attitude of the U.S.A. I used to be proud to be an American but under this president, I'm ashamed and have wished many times to be elsewhere. It's our governments arrogance that got us into the mess. I blame the World Trade Center bombing February 1993 and the twin towers Sept. 2001 on the policies of our government. Shame on us, all of us including congress for allowing these folks to remain in power!
Posted by: Pat Braddy | June 23, 2007 1:55 PM
There is no doubt that this is the most corrupt presidential administration in American history.
And, taking into account the administrations of Jackson the Ethnic Cleanser, Grant the Robber-baron Overlooker, Harding the Postwar Profiteer, and Nixon the Dirty Trickster, that says a lot.
Maybe we can call this one "Dubya the Halliburton Tool."
Posted by: Farb | June 23, 2007 1:59 PM
Apparently, Cheney is Shrodinger's Vice President, an indeterminite wave function that collapses into one of the branches of government based upon political expediency. Bush, of course, can then be seen to be nothing more a Gedankenexperiment gone horribly wrong. I believe someone forgot to bring the Gedanken.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 23, 2007 2:25 PM
Yes, I know how to spell Schrödinger. Unfortunately, I can't type!
Posted by: kehrsam | June 23, 2007 2:27 PM
Two pressing issues that are connected:
Why isn't Congress impeaching Bush?
Now that the executive branch of the government is unbalanced and corrupt, who, exactly, is going to fix it?
The members of Congress who want to become the next president, or influence the next president, why would they fight to limit the president's power, whatever the Constitution says? This corruption began back in the Regan era--remember that, run by the same bunch of guys?--and no president, Democratic or Republican, has been particularly keen to limit his own branch's power. It's just growing worse and worse.
Whether this administration is worse than one that happened in 1831 is interesting, but kind of irrelevant. It's plenty bad enough right now.
Posted by: Liberty | June 23, 2007 2:31 PM
There has already been a coup. We no longer have a say so in anything. Wake up dreamland people.
Posted by: James | June 23, 2007 2:34 PM
Ronald Regan has GOT to be rolling over in his grave over the antics of THIS administration.
Posted by: Dan Kelly | June 23, 2007 2:44 PM
I just looked over the Constitution briefly. The problem is that the position of Vice-President really isn't clearly defined anywhere. His only constitutional duty is indeed defined in the Legislative Branch, but his selection is defined in the Presidential section. Additionally, every change to the Presidency has included changes to the Vice-Presidency.
I'd say those oft-repeated linkages of the two offices make it clear that the two offices are in the same branch. I can see sufficient confusion to provide for a lovely court battle, but there's one other point to consider. The duties of the Vice-President, apart from serving as President of the Senate, are entirely assigned by the President - just like every other office within the Executive Branch. If Mr. Cheney doesn't get his authority by delegation from the President, then he doesn't have any at all. If he does, then he functions as part of the Executive Branch.
On the other hand...the regulation he is accused of breaking is an executive order, issued under the authority of the President, with no legislative involvement. Arguably, if President Bush scribbles on the bottom "except for Dick," then his refusal to submit to inspection is legal. If the President then classifies that change to the executive order, then not only is the Vice-President right to refuse, but he's also right to come up with a confusing BS excuse for it.
I don't claim that this is what happened - it seems much more likely that the two chief executives are simply playing power games. It is certainly a PR fiasco for them. But I don't think there's any possibility of legal problems for them as a result - in this case, the regulation is what Bush says it is, and as long as he's happy, Cheney has nothing to worry about.
Posted by: BobApril | June 23, 2007 2:52 PM
The scary thing is that this administration is so unlawful and they keep getting away with it - they sacrifice a few of the smaller players (e.g., Libby) but the organization essentially keeps going and Bush and Cheney are still in the White House when they should have been impeached a long time ago. We are still in Iraq and the oil companies are still making huge profits. You want a surge in the oil prices? All you need is a veiled threat by Bush that we'll take action against Iran and oil prices spike. Coincidence or a favor to the oil industry that bought the White House?
I think we have to admit that we no longer have a democracy. The administration also lined up federal judges loyal to Bush in key election states in the recent "political" sweep, which is very scary, considering that Bush stole the election from Gore. It will take a miracle to prevent voter fraud in our elections because of this.
What happened to Abramson? I read that the federal judge in his case was one of the victims of the r"political" sweep (I call it the "obstruction of justice" sweep. Will Abramson ever suffer any consequences? Probably not if the new federal judge is loyal to Bush. The GOP has to really protect its most powerful criminals, because if the justice system gets one, the house of cards will start folding and they're all in this together.
But the scariest part is that a majority of the Supreme Court is loyal to Bush and they are there for a lifetime.
Posted by: Sophie | June 23, 2007 3:05 PM
The End of the Bush Error will not be the end of America's Hideous Epoch.
Not until America's neoCon AdminisTraitors, are criminally prosecuted and hung will there be a noose DETERRENT for such sociopaths.
We need a separation of sociopaths and state, and a separation of Corporations and State.
American Style Democracy is easy pickens for a Corpocracy Hijacking.
We live in a Corpocracy that is parading around all Patriotic Like in Democracy's Clothes serving the false and evil god DOLLAH THE ALMIGHTY and his obscene profits..
Posted by: Rich Pizzo | June 23, 2007 3:10 PM
In the previous comment I mean to say "Abramoff" not Abramson.
Posted by: sophie | June 23, 2007 3:10 PM
The Vice President is a Rank Member of The President's Cabinet
He is considered an executive of the Executive Branch with the Duty to Head the Senate.
He was Elected to the Executive Branch, he ran for an Executive Branch office, not as a President of the Senate.
President of The Senate is one of his Executive Branch Official Duties.
The goings on in his office -crimes- is unknown by the senate, and known by the president and some of the Executive Cabinet.
He is prevaricating and equivocating to keep his crimes secret.
Especially the OIL/energy deal where American's Can Afford to pay more for energy
Not to mention his war treacheries..
Posted by: Rich Pizzo | June 23, 2007 3:21 PM
In response to CTurner "What did the US do the last time it claimed an egomaniacal, tyrannical leader had refused to cooperate with inspectors?" I do believe we re-elected him to office and then voted his other half into the Senate for the State of New York. Setting a shining example of things to come. So quitchabellyachin, the good people of America are the ones who allowed this to become the norm instead of the exception.
Posted by: L Bunch | June 23, 2007 3:30 PM
Ah, you know we couldn't go too long without someone giving the "B-b-b-but Clinton" argument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 3:54 PM
Unfortunately, very little this administration says or does is a surprise any more. Cheney is just a representative of an administration that has completely perverted the workings of our US Government.
Some people say that Cheney is the ultimate evil. Could this be true?
The checks and balances that have made our Democracy work (from day one) have been completely subverted by the Bush administration. These people are all about political domination, power, and money.
I think that once the full extent of what this administration has done is made known to the American people they will be more than outraged. They will wonder how much it will take to get functional Government back again.
Most people probably don't know the true amount of sneaky things that have been done behind closed doors and in the dead of night. Cheney, by the way, is a great closed door and dead of the night participant in all this.
No wonder he says his office is not part of the Executive Branch.
It is only too apparent how really dysfunctional all Branches of our Government have become.
Can we fix things?
Hopefully, the American people are now becoming aware of what harm they have done by giving political power to these dishonest, corrupt people.
We would like to say "we told you so". However, this attitude is not helpful. No doubt we are all going to have to pull together to fix things.
Certainly, there never was a mandate from God in what the Bush administration has done (in the name of God).
They have labeled those of us who disagree with them Godless or unpatriotic.
They have also created an enormous divide between both political parties to the extent that neither can work with the other for the good of the American people. Shamefully, it has become necessary for both political parties to out do each other in stupidness and out right dishonesty.
I hope that once they are done corrupting our Government; we can turn things around. Sadly, there is not much we can do about the Supreme Court that has been stacked with judges ruling against the will of the American people - in favor of greedy Corporate interests every time.
Makes me think that these appointments should have a limitation on the number of years as opposed to being lifetime. The Supreme Court is subverted just like the rest of Government. How can any one get justice?
The Justice Department is no longer creditable. Things (as far as Government are concerned) are in really bad shape. Any one can see that.
As Bush always says "it will take hard work" (not that he would know the meaning) since he has managed to use his rich class status to escape any thing dangerous or too difficult for himself.
Posted by: David Casey | June 23, 2007 4:11 PM
Troublesome Frog
I think its going to go one of two ways... Either he's involved with the 25 mil to kim jong il and a North Korean nuke or he's simply going to tell W that the oval office needs to be painted or recarpeted and for W to go back to Texas and wait until Chaney calls him....
Posted by: John Baldoni | June 23, 2007 4:22 PM
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel has offered an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut all funding from the Office of the Vice President, since the bill is only for funding the executive branch.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 23, 2007 5:47 PM
Ed, your Freudian slip is showing, and it's delightful!
You wrote:
Of course, you meant "rein." Please, don't change it.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 23, 2007 6:08 PM
Absolutely classic.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 6:10 PM
Wow what is it with these guys and their lame loopholes. They're supposed to set an example for the law abiding citizens, hardy har har.
Posted by: 386sx | June 23, 2007 6:20 PM
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel has offered an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut all funding from the Office of the Vice President, since the bill is only for funding the executive branch.
That's hilarious. Lame loopholes, lame Vice President, lame war strategy... lameness prevails!
Posted by: 386sx | June 23, 2007 6:25 PM
Just for everyones information- The office of the vice president is not part of the executive branch of government. The president can not fire the vice president. He is elected, not appointed. Anybody that doesn't know this needs to do some research before they start blogging and writing article that show their ignorance.
Posted by: Scott | June 23, 2007 7:18 PM
Scott wrote:
LOL. An absolutely irrelevant argument. The President is elected too; is he also not part of the executive branch?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 7:26 PM
For further clarification the vice president is the "president " of the Senate. There by he votes and is part of the legislative branch of government. Somebody asked "what branch of government would he be part of" The obvious answer would be the Senate. He is elected by the people and his duties are Senate president. He does not answer to or have to answer to the President. Seems obvious what branch of government he is part of.
Posted by: scott | June 23, 2007 7:34 PM
And finally the vice president can not veto law or sign bills into law. he is not the president and does not have executive powers. His roll is legislative.
Posted by: scott | June 23, 2007 7:38 PM
Do you have an good arguments to make? The first one was just plain idiotic; the fact that he is elected rather than appointed has precisely nothing to do with which branch of government he is in. Your new arguments are no better. Yes, the constitution gives him the authority to break ties but that does not mean he's in the Senate. He does not have a vote in the Senate unless there is a tie, which only means that the Constitution gives a member of the executive branch the ability to break ties in that body. That is the only role he plays in the Senate and the only reason he ever shows up there.
The Vice President is a subordinate of the President and acts as an executive officer. And yes, the president CAN fire the Vice President; it has happened many times. How many times have you heard Cheney himself say that he serves at the pleasure of the President? If he was a member of the Senate he would fall under the Senate rules, but he does not; he falls under all of the rules of the executive branch. If Cheney really believed he was part of the Senate rather than the executive branch, why did he claim executive privilege on the energy task force? Why is the funding for his office all part of the executive appropriations? Why does he use White House counsels? All of this is nonsense. Cheney is undeniably a part of the executive branch. He knows it, you know it and everyone else knows it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 7:51 PM
Posted by: mark | June 23, 2007 8:07 PM
The V.P.'s Job: The only duty the U.S. Constitution assigns the vice president is to act as presiding officer of the Senate. But the vice president also serves as ceremonial assistant to the president and is an important part of the president's administration.
The Vice President can be only as important as the President chooses. The Vice President has almost no political power, unless the President asks for advice about party policy and political appointments. Even the Vice President's role as a Cabinet member depends on the wishes of the President. But with the active support of the President, the Vice President can exert a tremendous amount of influence. The Vice President's attendance at conferences between the President and congressional leaders strengthens the Vice President's power with the legislative branch. If the President gives the Vice President important diplomatic missions, the Vice President can help shape United States foreign policy.
Posted by: Scott | June 23, 2007 8:13 PM
Scott--
Again, you mention the fact that the Vice President is elected, and again it is still an irrelevant argument. The president, of course, is also elected. Consider what the Constitution actually says:
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..."
The VP is mentioned throughout Article 2 as regards the qualifications for president, along with his role when the President's office is vacant, his removal from office, etc. In contrast, the office is only mentioned in the legislative articles in the context of his single legislative duty--being President of the Senate. He has always been considered to be part of the executive branch, but with duties in the legislature, rather than the opposite way around.
By way of comparison, the President is required to give information to the Congress as to the state of the union, and may convene and adjourn the Congress under extraordinary circumstances--but there is no question that this is a legislative duty for the otherwise executive branch-based President; it hardly makes the President a member of the legislature.
Posted by: THobbes | June 23, 2007 8:15 PM
Wow, Ed, this one has drawn out the nuts. I'm tempted to go back and chat with Ruvy - these guys make him look sane. Even the people who agree with you seem more interested in spewing their hate. One of them, though, needs to go back to high school gov't class.
Scott said: "And finally the vice president can not veto law or sign bills into law."
Um, yeah, okay. Scott, the Executive Branch is far and away the largest of the three branches. Every Cabinet agency, most of the independent agencies, the entire military...all part of the Executive Branch. Only one of them out of several hundred thousand gets to sign bills into law.
He also said: "Somebody asked 'what branch of government would he be part of' The obvious answer would be the Senate."
The Senate isn't a branch. See my earlier comment in this thread for a discussion of the VP's executive duties and their source. The VP works for the President - he's part of the Executive Branch.
But I'd love to see Rep. Emanuel's amendment pass - with enough votes to override the inevitable veto.
Posted by: BobApril | June 23, 2007 8:32 PM
Our Constitution's framers created the vice-presidency almost as an afterthought. In setting up a system for electing presidents, they devised an electoral college and provided that each of its members was to vote for two persons, "of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." In those days when loyalty to one's state was stronger than to the new nation, the framers recognized that individual electors might be inclined to choose a leader from their own immediate political circle, creating the danger of a crippling deadlock, as no one candidate would win a plurality of all votes cast. By being required to select one candidate from outside their own states, electors would be compelled to look for individuals of national stature. Under the system the framers created, the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be president. The one coming in second would be vice president.
Then, after Aaron Burr, the 3rd VP, there was a deadlock and we got the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, instituting the present system wherein electors cast separate ballots for president and for vice president.
The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3)
Although the office of vice president did not exist under the Continental Congresses or the Articles of Confederation, the concept of a concurrently elected successor to the executive was not without precedent for the framers of the Constitution in 1787. Prior to the Revolution, lieutenant governors presided over the governors' councils of the royal colonies -- which, in their legislative capacities, functioned as upper houses. John Adams was certainly familiar with this arrangement, since the lieutenant governor presided over the upper house in his own state of Massachusetts. After the states declared their independence, they adopted new constitutions, retaining, in some instances, earlier forms recast to meet current needs. As Alexander Hamilton noted in The Federalist No. 68, New York's 1777 constitution provided for "a Lieutenant Governor chosen by the people at large, who presides in the senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor in casualties similar to those, which would authorize the vice-president to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the president." The Constitution established the office of vice president primarily to provide a successor in the event of the president's death, disability, or resignation.
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."
Posted by: Scott | June 23, 2007 8:35 PM
This most recent post from Scott seemed well written and thought out. Since it was SO different from his others, I googled an entire paragraph from it, and let's guess what happened...
Yes, indeed, Scott just copy/pasted from another website...
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm#2
There are several other websites also that have this exact same message, because it's excerpted from a book:
(Mark O. Hatfield, with the Senate Historical Office,
Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993,
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997, pp. xiii-xxiii)
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 23, 2007 8:49 PM
Meanwhile
Teach the Controversy: It's not just for biology anymore.
Posted by: Coin | June 23, 2007 9:01 PM
Scott
wrotecut and pasted:What's funny is that Scott doesn't realize that what he cut and pasted actually undermines his argument. The only way the vice president's role in breaking ties could be considered a violation of the separation of powers doctrine is if he's not part of the Senate (if he was, then it obviously would not violate such a separation). It is only a problem if the VP is in the executive branch, where everyone, including Cheney himself, knows he is. Notice that Scott didn't bother to answer the question about Cheney's assertion of executive privilege. Or the fact that he uses White House officials for all of his official duties. This argument is simply idiotic.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 9:28 PM
doctorgoo -
After your last comment, I googled scott's preceding comment. That was out of World Book, online encyclopedia.
Ironically, that cut and paste, was more supportive of the notion of Veep as member of the executive, than anything else.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2007 9:28 PM
doctorgoo -
After your last comment, I googled scott's preceding comment. That was out of World Book, online encyclopedia.
Ironically, that cut and paste, was more supportive of the notion of Veep as member of the executive, than anything else.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2007 9:30 PM
Fact of the matter is, there is no argument. Nobody out there can show one single scrap of written legislation that provides that the veep is of the executive branch. Show me one single thing in our constitution that gives the VP to the executive branch. You can not! There isn't anything! There is scant little of anything that gives the veep to any branch, and of His history and what there is, it gives Him and the existence of His office to the congress! Any written order or authority at all in our constitution is to Him and the Congress.
Anybody can end this debate very simply, show me anything in our constitution that shows otherwise. BACK up your argument with written proof. Not based by your feelings or assumptions.
In a court of law I could prove the VP and His congressional duties and powers and you can not show one single executive power, not one. He can do NOTHING outside the whim of the president.
Posted by: scott | June 23, 2007 10:12 PM
Scott wrote:
Are you really dumb enough not to recognize that this statement proves your position wrong? The fact that he is entirely under the power of the president is exactly why he can only be a part of the executive branch. The courts and the legislators all have powers separate from the president; the vice-president only has one power separate from the president (the power to break Senate ties) and everything else he does is at the direction of the president. That's exactly why he is part of the executive branch. The vice president has always been considered part of the executive branch for constitutional and regulatory purposes. He does not have to follow any administrative rules of the Senate but does have to follow all of the regulatory rules of the executive branch. You're just plain wrong, Scott, and you've offered nothing but idiotic arguments, some of which actually undermine your case.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 10:19 PM
DuWayn posted "Ironically, that cut and paste, was more supportive of the notion of Veep as member of the executive, than anything else."
This is the factual history, and this is what I posted- "Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
No, "ironically" this does not defeat my point, it supports it. Think it through, the fact that there is any doubt, that it was not written in stone, that even then they had to wonder about the perceived separation of powers, proves that it is not an absolute and it was not written into the constitution. They "viewed" it-- not everyone, but some, it was OPINION. Not fact. it was PERCEPTION, just as it is with your view today.
The fact is that the VP has actual power in congress and zero power in the executive branch
Posted by: scott | June 23, 2007 10:28 PM
Prove it, thats all, not with chit chat and assumptive assertions, but prove it, with factual doctrine. Show where in it is written.
If this was before the supreme court, they would inevitably be unable to prove his executive power. He has none. On the other hand it is in the constitution his legislative power, that can be shown and would be proven.
You would lose.
Posted by: scott | June 23, 2007 10:35 PM
scott -
He can do NOTHING outside the whim of the president.
And this supports your argument how? Seriously, I doubt anyone here would argue that the veep does have much authority, outside what the executive gives him. Do you understand that this supports the notion that the veep is part of the executive branch. He is elected to office, with the executive. His budget comes from the budget of the executive. The executive is his boss. If his boss gets sick, or is otherwise unable to fulfill his duty, the veep fills in or takes over.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 23, 2007 10:58 PM
Scott, this has already been to court over and over again. Remember a few years ago when Cheney claimed executive privilege to guard the identity of the energy task force he had worked with? He won. You can't have executive privilege unless you're part of the executive branch. Here's what the very first sentence of the Supreme Court order said:
The court has already said that the Vice President is an executive branch official.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 11:04 PM
Hamilton writes in Federalist 68:
The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.
The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other.
1) The vice-president is chosen same manner as the president, not the congress and not the senate. Clearly the method of electing was seen, by the founders, as an executive election which differed significantly from the congress.
2)The senate is made up exclusively of members selected from the states, clearly the vp is not in that category because, following Hamilton's logic for not selecting from the senate, it would create an imbalance in senate representation (above, it would take away one state's senator, in the case at hand, it would add an additional member).
3)The vice-president may occasionally become president. Clearly, the framers are accounting for separate processes because they did not want slippage between executive and legislative branches.
4) The ONLY place that discussion of the vice-president arises is in relation to the executive. Read the Federalist Papers on the senate, or the legislative branch writ large, and you do not find reference to the vp.
Best,
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | June 23, 2007 11:10 PM
scott:
Nobody out there can show one single scrap of written legislation that provides that the veep is of the executive branch.
Now, does this actually qualify as a Gish Gallop here, or is it just a variant?
A trivial search in the U.S. Code for "vice president executive" turns up in the very first hit:
This "in the performance of executive duties" wording repeats four or five times in similar contexts in the same file. So, there you are, one scrap providing for the idea of the Vice President as an executive office which performs executive duties.
The same section of the U.S. code explicitly refers to the Vice President's Office as a part of the "Executive Office of the President"; the bit of the U.S. code that defines that term contains multiple explanations that the Vice President's Office is part of the Executive Office of the President:
Although just to be clear, as far as I understand neither this nor the explicit reference to the Executive Office of the President in the former link are from legislation, but rather executive orders.
Now, these are just the first couple of things I ran across in the first couple of returns on a simple search. I have no doubt that stronger statements could be found looking at other parts of the U.S. code, other legislation, previous court decisions, and the contextual statements the authors of the Constitution made at the time. I don't think it's actually necessary to spend the time to track these statements down; since the "scraps" above, and the extreme ease with which they can be found, are enough to demonstrate you neither know nor care whether there is "evidence" the Vice President is part of the executive branch, and all you're doing here is making stuff up without any regard for whether it's true or not to bluff people into treating Cheney's ridiculous lies as having some worth.
Posted by: Coin | June 23, 2007 11:10 PM
Answer this question for me. Is the Information Security Oversight office trying to inspect his office to make sure that he and his personnel are following accepted security measures and procedures? If that is what they are doing, then why would Cheyney not want them to inspect his office? Could it be that he has information in his office that he shouldn't have? Maybe there is information or evidence proving that he gave the orders to release the CIA's undercover agent's identity? Maybe there is information about things that Bush is doing, tapping phones, torturing illegally held prisoners?
Makes you want to know what he's hiding in there.
I think we need our Congressmen to start investigating the Bush administration, their relationships with Big Oil, Gitmo, and who they are arresting and where they are putting them.
Posted by: Charles | June 24, 2007 12:33 AM
Now I understand. If the VP has no idea what branch of the government he works for now, its easy to understand why he flunked out of Yale and returned to Wyoming. This information is readily available...see time.com for example.
Posted by: dannyboy | June 24, 2007 2:25 AM
Oddly enough, Scott has completely missed the best argument for his hypothesis, which is that for the first century of the Republic, Vice Presidents took their Senate job seriously and actively presided over most sessions. The VP had an office in the Capitol (and still does) at a time when he did not have one at the White House. Presiding over the Senate and casting tie-breaker votes are legislative processes. The Speaker of the House also presides over his body, and until recent years never voted except in the case of ties as well. He definitely remains in the Legislative Branch.
That being said, the argument is still bunk. The President himself is assigned legislative functions by the Constitution (to open and close sessions of Congress, deliver a periodic report on the State of the Union, etc). The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is designated to preside over trials of impeachment in the Senate, and did so as recently as the Alcee Hastings matter. These duties do not remove them to the Legislative Branch.
What the founders did not anticipate was the rapid rise of the party system (Federalist 10 makes it clear that Madison did not believe that the US would quickly dissolve into "factions:" They are treated as a curse to be avoided). Their original conception is more like the rule of Philosopher Kings, where the VP would be the President's hand-picked successor. It didn't work out that way, with the result being a quick Amendment to adjust the process to reality.
Scott's problem comes from the relative silence of the Constitution and founders regarding the office. Silence, however, is not proof of anything. If Scott were to put his argument forward in a ConLaw class at any decent law school he would be laughed out of the room.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 24, 2007 5:22 AM
"Could it be that he has information in his office that he shouldn't have? Maybe there is information or evidence proving that he gave the orders to release the CIA's undercover agent's identity?"
More likely it arises from their claim that Cheney had declassifed various classified documents (without telling anyone), meaning it was then legal for him to leak them to various members of the press.
I've always foudn that pretty hard to credit.
Posted by: Ian Gould | June 24, 2007 5:32 AM
In any event, it certainly gives the appearance that Cheney's office has something to hide. Undoubtedly the reasons provided for refusing inspections will be "Too much time taken from pressing business; internal processes in place prevent the problems an inspection would catch; data available is too sensitive even for a highly-cleared inspector" and so on. Once again, though, it is hard to believe that someone with a clean conscience would fight so hard to avoid inspection. Of course, if we used that logic in a standard criminal case, the 4th Amendment would quickly be pointed out, so I might be in a bit of danger of hypocrisy here...
I note that no one has answered my point about the applicability of an executive order if the President finds it inconvenient. I'll throw out another loose cannon blast - I submit that even if the order should have applied to the office of the VP back in 2003, the President could TODAY scribble on the bottom, "except for Dick, retroactive to 2003." Even that would suffice to make this a non-issue, legally. Still worthy of media attention, perhaps even Congressional attention - but the Court would have no choice but to throw the case out, were it to be brought in the first place.
Posted by: BobApril | June 24, 2007 8:21 AM
Apparently, Cheney is Schrödinger's Vice President, an indeterminite wave function that collapses into one of the branches of government based upon political expediency.
LOL!
But even Schrödinger's cat only gets to die once. Cheney is apparently trying to un-collapse the wavefunction after it's already collapsed to a definite eigenvalue.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 24, 2007 8:48 AM
I should in the interests of fairness point out that Cheney's superposition is not without parallel in the Australian version of the Westminster system.
A Minister in Parliament is member of the legislature.
The same Minister in his ministerial office is a member of the executive branch and ne'er the twain shall meet.
As a public servant advising the Minister, I was expressly forbidden to have any contact of any sort with his political advisors.
Ministers meeting as Cabinet are part of the legislative branch but the same Ministers meeting in the Governor's presence form the Executive Council and are the very tip of the executive branch.
But the last thing Americans want to do is start copying the absurdities of the Westminister system.
Posted by: Ian Gould | June 24, 2007 10:34 AM
"They don't know better."
I don't think so.
It takes clever legal advice to decide ("I am the decider") that the #2 person in the Executive Branch is not in the Executive Branch. It takes clever legal advice to decide that the Geneva Convention is "quaint."
It takes clever legal advice to decide that American citizens can be indefinitely detained without being charged with any crime.
It takes clever legal advice to decide to open mail and tap phones without asking the court specifically set up to be asked for permission.
"Planning a coup?" Hardly. This is what comes long AFTER a coup.
The White House is declared to be the Black House, as White and Black have been redefined to be each other. The national debt is declared to be a surplus. War is declared as peace. Ignorance is declared as Bliss. The chocolate ration is increased.
Footnote: Satan declares that he is not actually in Hell. Reigning in Hell, yes, but that is done from extrajurisdictional loci. In a footnote, Satan declares that, technically, as an archangel, he is still in Heaven.
Extraordinary Rendition to Limbo begins, as Limbo officially does not exist, and is thus available as undeveloped real estate. I use the word "real" loosely....
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | June 24, 2007 6:06 PM
Cheney's and Bush's public statements going back for years have been impeached and they should both should be impeached from office PRONTO. THEY NEVER TELL THE TRUTH - WHY ARE THESE CRIMINALS STILL RUNNING OUR COUNTRY?
Definition of "impeach" from the Law.com Dictionary (online):
Impeach
v. 1) to discredit the testimony of a witness by proving that he/she has not told the truth or has been inconsistent, by introducing contrary evidence, including statements made outside of the courtroom in depositions or in statements of the witness heard by another. 2) to charge a public official with a public crime for which the punishment is removal from office. One President, Andrew Johnson in 1868, was charged with violation of federal laws in a politically motivated impeachment, but was acquitted by the margin of one vote in a trial held by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impending impeachment charges brought by the House of Representatives in the Watergate affair, in which he was accused of obstructing the investigation and lying to Congress about his participation. Several federal judges have been impeached and nine have been found guilty by the Senate.
Posted by: Sophie | June 25, 2007 1:18 AM