Comments on: The Office of the Vice President Does not Consider itself an “entity within the executive branch” http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133 A rough draft of my thoughts... Wed, 03 Oct 2025 05:57:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: White House Backs Cheney: Defends Veep On Secrets Exemption · New York Articles http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363323 Fri, 29 Jun 2025 20:12:57 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363323 [...] I guess what we have here is something historians call a “Constitutional Mexican toss up” which will be decided by the courts long after the deaths of the parties involved. –Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: The assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time. Yes, the VP has some legislative duties, but the notion that that office is not part of the executive branch is insane. One would allow that the first mention of the Vice President in the Constitution is in regards to the veep’s role as president of the Senate, however, the obvious raison d’être for the office is to be, for lack of a more elegant description, back-up equipment for the chief executive office. [...] […] I guess what we have here is something historians call a “Constitutional Mexican toss up” which will be decided by the courts long after the deaths of the parties involved. –Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: The assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time. Yes, the VP has some legislative duties, but the notion that that office is not part of the executive branch is insane. One would allow that the first mention of the Vice President in the Constitution is in regards to the veep’s role as president of the Senate, however, the obvious raison d’être for the office is to be, for lack of a more elegant description, back-up equipment for the chief executive office. […]

]]> by: White House Backs Cheney: Defends Veep On Secrets Exemption · Articles http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363285 Wed, 27 Jun 2025 22:46:57 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363285 [...] –Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: The assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time. Yes, the VP has some legislative duties, but the notion that that office is not part of the executive branch is insane. One would allow that the first mention of the Vice President in the Constitution is in regards to the veep’s role as president of the Senate, however, the obvious raison d’être for the office is to be, for lack of a more elegant description, back-up equipment for the chief executive office. [...] […] –Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: The assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time. Yes, the VP has some legislative duties, but the notion that that office is not part of the executive branch is insane. One would allow that the first mention of the Vice President in the Constitution is in regards to the veep’s role as president of the Senate, however, the obvious raison d’être for the office is to be, for lack of a more elegant description, back-up equipment for the chief executive office. […]

]]> by: PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » On the Fourth Branch http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363234 Tue, 26 Jun 2025 17:06:33 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363234 [...] This piece from Dana Milbank’s piece in WaPo inspired me to read Dana Perino’s entire press briefing from yesterday–much of which dealt with Vice President Cheney’s rather novel argument about his office’s status in the structure of the federal government. [...] […] This piece from Dana Milbank’s piece in WaPo inspired me to read Dana Perino’s entire press briefing from yesterday–much of which dealt with Vice President Cheney’s rather novel argument about his office’s status in the structure of the federal government. […]

]]> by: ts http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363216 Sun, 24 Jun 2025 18:23:21 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363216 Dr. Taylor - I never said that Boortz claimed the Constitution stated that the OVP was not part of the Executive Branch, but rather that a series of well respected texts on the Constitution stated that OVP was not, a claim bolstered by the GPO link provided in my previous post. The issue with regard to executive privilege gets a little murky. If the VP was acting upon the request of the President to provide him (the Pres) with information, he may be able to make the claim that Executive Privilege applies without sacrificing a claim of Constitutional separation from the Executive Branch. The problem here seems to be a conflation of the legal and the political, and a willingness to assume that they are one and the same. Politically, Cheney's claim is problematic for the administration. Legally, there may be a legitimate foundation for the claim. It is certainly not the cut and dried answer that so many claim. The simple fact that OVP is funded by the Senate's budget should create a question in people's minds as to the legal status of the office. Dr. Taylor -

I never said that Boortz claimed the Constitution stated that the OVP was not part of the Executive Branch, but rather that a series of well respected texts on the Constitution stated that OVP was not, a claim bolstered by the GPO link provided in my previous post.

The issue with regard to executive privilege gets a little murky. If the VP was acting upon the request of the President to provide him (the Pres) with information, he may be able to make the claim that Executive Privilege applies without sacrificing a claim of Constitutional separation from the Executive Branch.

The problem here seems to be a conflation of the legal and the political, and a willingness to assume that they are one and the same. Politically, Cheney’s claim is problematic for the administration. Legally, there may be a legitimate foundation for the claim. It is certainly not the cut and dried answer that so many claim. The simple fact that OVP is funded by the Senate’s budget should create a question in people’s minds as to the legal status of the office.

]]> by: Dr. Steven Taylor http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363209 Sat, 23 Jun 2025 14:11:26 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363209 The most bizarre part of all of this is that it was never necessary for Cheney's office to make this assertion in the first place: all he needed was for the President to amend the order in question. And ts, Boortz is wrong: the Constitution does not explicitly say any such thing. It does, however, note that the VP has certain legislative-branch duties. We knew that. However, that isn't the issue. Those seeking to defends Cheney have to find a way to explain how he can both assert executive privilege and claim that he isn't fully part of that branch. The most bizarre part of all of this is that it was never necessary for Cheney’s office to make this assertion in the first place: all he needed was for the President to amend the order in question.

And ts, Boortz is wrong: the Constitution does not explicitly say any such thing. It does, however, note that the VP has certain legislative-branch duties. We knew that. However, that isn’t the issue.

Those seeking to defends Cheney have to find a way to explain how he can both assert executive privilege and claim that he isn’t fully part of that branch.

]]> by: Dick Cheney: A Branch to Himself « Michael P.F. van der Galiën http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363208 Sat, 23 Jun 2025 10:04:28 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363208 [...] Dr. Stephen Taylor writes: “the assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time.” Dr. James Joyner nuances: Now, because of separation of powers, the president could not enforce an Executive Order requiring Members of Congress or the Supreme Court to submit to these protocols. That could be accomplished only by passage of a law or by the agreement of those branches. But Cheney, despite being the head of a legislative house, is not a Senator. So, of course, he has to comply with Executive Orders, unless the president specifically exempts him. [...] […] Dr. Stephen Taylor writes: “the assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time.” Dr. James Joyner nuances: Now, because of separation of powers, the president could not enforce an Executive Order requiring Members of Congress or the Supreme Court to submit to these protocols. That could be accomplished only by passage of a law or by the agreement of those branches. But Cheney, despite being the head of a legislative house, is not a Senator. So, of course, he has to comply with Executive Orders, unless the president specifically exempts him. […]

]]> by: ts http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363206 Sat, 23 Jun 2025 04:15:01 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363206 If this is so amazing, how do you explain this from a 2025 GPO document - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf Was in the car listening to Neal Boortz this morning, and he listed a series of texts on the Constitution, all of which asserted that the Office of the Vice-President is not part of the Executive Branch. So it seems that the common understanding may be incorrect. If this is so amazing, how do you explain this from a 2025 GPO document - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf

Was in the car listening to Neal Boortz this morning, and he listed a series of texts on the Constitution, all of which asserted that the Office of the Vice-President is not part of the Executive Branch. So it seems that the common understanding may be incorrect.

]]> by: The Lord Of Darkness http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363205 Sat, 23 Jun 2025 03:59:56 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363205 [...] Other bloggers weigh in — courtesy, in part, to MemeOrandum’s blog roundup (thanks to MemeOrandum for selecting this as a Featured Post, by the way): The Carpetbagger Report; Liberal Values; The Newshoggers; The Gavel; Think Progress; The Impolitic; CREW; The Left Coaster; Drudge Retort; PoliBlog [...] […] Other bloggers weigh in — courtesy, in part, to MemeOrandum’s blog roundup (thanks to MemeOrandum for selecting this as a Featured Post, by the way): The Carpetbagger Report; Liberal Values; The Newshoggers; The Gavel; Think Progress; The Impolitic; CREW; The Left Coaster; Drudge Retort; PoliBlog […]

]]> by: White House Backs Cheney: Defends Veep On Secrets Exemption » The Moderate Voice http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363201 Sat, 23 Jun 2025 00:17:48 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363201 [...] I guess what we have here is something historians call a “Constitutional Mexican toss up” which will be decided by the courts long after the deaths of the parties involved. –Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: The assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time. Yes, the VP has some legislative duties, but the notion that that office is not part of the executive branch is insane. One would allow that the first mention of the Vice President in the Constitution is in regards to the veep’s role as president of the Senate, however, the obvious raison d’être for the office is to be, for lack of a more elegant description, back-up equipment for the chief executive office. [...] […] I guess what we have here is something historians call a “Constitutional Mexican toss up” which will be decided by the courts long after the deaths of the parties involved. –Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor: The assertion that the veep’s office is not part of the executive branch is perhaps the most absurd thing that I have heard in some time. Yes, the VP has some legislative duties, but the notion that that office is not part of the executive branch is insane. One would allow that the first mention of the Vice President in the Constitution is in regards to the veep’s role as president of the Senate, however, the obvious raison d’être for the office is to be, for lack of a more elegant description, back-up equipment for the chief executive office. […]

]]> by: Steve Plunk http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363196 Fri, 22 Jun 2025 20:43:22 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=12133#comment-1363196 It seems this requirement is not constitutionally required or statutorial required but a presidential directive. Given that, I would then assume it is the President's perogative to enforce it. If he chooses not to then I hardly see it as an afront to our democracy and constitution. Previous comments refer to violations of the constitution and vitriol concerning Cheney's daughter. Come on, put some thought into it and come up with some good ideas, not the old tired nonsense. The first clue to this being blown out of proportion is the source, Henry Waxman. It's Waxman's claim about the Vice President not being part of the executive branch. We also see that the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office is still seeking legal advice. Until this is worked through I would withhold such extreme criticism. It seems this requirement is not constitutionally required or statutorial required but a presidential directive. Given that, I would then assume it is the President’s perogative to enforce it. If he chooses not to then I hardly see it as an afront to our democracy and constitution.

Previous comments refer to violations of the constitution and vitriol concerning Cheney’s daughter. Come on, put some thought into it and come up with some good ideas, not the old tired nonsense.

The first clue to this being blown out of proportion is the source, Henry Waxman. It’s Waxman’s claim about the Vice President not being part of the executive branch.

We also see that the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office is still seeking legal advice. Until this is worked through I would withhold such extreme criticism.

]]>