"Constitutional Law Scholar" Biden's Article I Gaffe

Ace of Spades ^

[flyfree]

"Vice President Cheney has probably been the most dangerous Vice President we've had in American history. He has the idea...he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States. That's the executive. He works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

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 the Vice President to preside over the senate only in a time when in fact there is a tie vote. The constitution is explicit, the only authority the Vice President has from a legislative standpoint is to vote only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea that he's a part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of the unitary executive..and look where it's gotten us.

Biden is just plain wrong about this. First of all, Article I defines the legislative branch, including its composition and the scope of its powers and the powers and privileges of its members. Article I, sec. 3, clause 4 is the first time the Vice President is mentioned in the Constitution. It gives the Vice President an important role to play:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Constitution goes on to direct the Senate to chose a President pro tempore to preside over the Senate in the VP's absence. Though it is not explicitly stated, the VP is also the President of the Senate during all trials of impeachments other than trials of the President. In other words, when Biden says that the VP has "no authority relative to the Congress" the truth is actually that the VP has a special authority, reserved to no other unless the VP chooses to let another wield it.

Article II does not extend to the VP any executive powers. Sections 2 and 3 specifically grant duties and powers to the President; the VP goes unmentioned. In fact, Article II provides for compensation for the President, but doesn't direct the VP to receive anything!

So Joe Biden is talking out his ass when he says "Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States. That's the executive. He works in the executive branch." Article I doesn't define the VP's executive roles. In fact, neither does Article II, because the VP has no role to play within the executive branch except to take over in case of death or incapacitation of the President.

Now, this wouldn't ordinarily be all that big of a deal, but Joe Biden is supposed to be Mr. Big Constitutional Lawyer who is going to cure all the excesses of Darth Cheney. But it doesn't seem like he's got much of a grasp of the Constitution at all. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Vice President the "primary role ... to support the President of the United States of America." Under the Constitution, the VP only has two things to do: break ties in the Senate and wait for the President to die.

The relationship between the Vice President and the President has varied from administration to administration and it has no basis in the Constitution. It's good modern policy, but remember that in the original scheme of things the President and the VP were usually competitors. The President is well within his rights to kick the VP out in the cold.

[flyfree]

Remember, the Constitution first setup the VP as the person who came in 2nd in the presidential race. There was no intention for that person to be in the Executive branch.

The 3rd in line, in the Constitution is also in the Legislative branch: the Speaker of the House

[Para-Ord.45]

Someone ping Mark Levin ASAP

[Tublecane]

I haven’t studied too closely the rationale behind the VP being the president of the Senate. Was the intention for the second most popular man in the nation to act as a sort of Prime Minister to counterbalance the president?

[Jeff Head]

Biden was making up a lot of things as he went along, and simply lying and making himself look foolish.. FOX (via Rove and others), Talk Radio, and the Internet will expose this but the MSM will ignore it.

I felt Sarah was constrained by her advisors and the campaign to be too much a cheerleader tonight and not allowed to just be herself and take the dems to task. Having said that, she certainly held her own with Biden and, much more importantly, she connected with the American people much much better than Biden.

That will be the key from tonight.

Biden bloviated all over the place and will be shown to have made glaring misrepresentations on McCain's record and his own.

But all of that pales in comparison to Sarah's ability, even when cheerleading for McCain, to connect with the American people in her style, in her wording, and in her demeanor.

Common Americans are naturally drawn to her. She speaks to them...speaks for them. All of the MSM attempts to the contrary, that is what she does and she McCain campaign needs to have her constalntly out in front of the people doing just that.

I'M VOTING FOR SARAH...AND SO ARE A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE

[Cementjungle]

Well, remember he did cheat his way through school, so he shouldn’t be expected to know these things.

[Bullish]

Uh.... Joe Biden is always talking out his ass.

[flyfree]

I haven’t studied too closely the rationale behind the VP being the president of the Senate. Was the intention for the second most popular man in the nation to act as a sort of Prime Minister to counterbalance the president?

No, his role is to cast a tie breaking vote in case of disputes between the States that resulted in ties in the Senate. Remember, the Senate was suppose to be made up of 2 men selected by each State to represent that State on federal issues in the Senate. There is really no relationship at all with the Executive branch.

[Tublecane]

By the way, since when was Cheney “dangerous” for trying to influence the legislature? I can’t remember many scandals coming out of that. Mostly, he’s considered dangerous (by kooks) because he’s a war profiteer (Haliburton) and the secret president of the REAL United States. Can anyone fill me in on any evidence of his iron grip on the throat of the Senate?

[GoLightly]

I’d love to see her gavel in the Senate...

Senators, I’ve placed a copy of the Constitution on your desks & we’re going to go through line by line today.

I can dream, can’t I?

[Tublecane]

“No, his role is to cast a tie breaking vote in case of disputes between the States that resulted in ties in the Senate.”

Yes, but what about the clause that names the VP President of the Senate? What was the rationale behind that?

[kbennkc]

You can tell he has gotten complacent from years of shoveling Bravo Sierra to people who would not know Article I from an article of ladies wear .

[Red Steel]

The main job of a VP is play golf. ;-)

[Rudder]

You present a good and cogent argument, that flew right over Biden’s toupee. Nevertheless, McCain’s camp should jump upon Biden’s limited understanding of the constitutional duties of the VP and his attack on Cheney.

[anniegetyourgun]

Yep - between the two attorneys (Obama and Biden) they have half a legal brain.

[The_Reader_David]

Should we win this, I think VP Palin should insist on actively presiding over the Senate on a fairly regular basis, if only to annoy Senators Biden and Obama.

[Plutarch]

Well, Joe Biden did graduate in the bottom 1/5 of his class from the law school ranked 100th or so in the country, so we do need to defer to his loudly self-proclaimed expertise and intelligence.

[VRWCtaz]

As I posted in another thread, it’s not as if he teaches a course on the Constitution or something! /s

[Tublecane]

“There is really no relationship at all with the Executive branch.”

You assume the VP was meant to be a part of the executive branch. Unless the president kicks it, VPs have absolutely no Constitutional role in that branch.

[GoLightly]

The Senate was originally set up to balance powers of the states against the power of the Fed, while the House was to be the voice of the people. I think the VP was meant to be the federal voice in that body.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Considering that the vice president is the President of the Senate: it means that its role is legislative & not administrative - furthermore - the v p does not engage in much actual administrating.

[Stayfree]

As a Constitutional lawyer, Biden barely qualifies to opine on the content permissible to display on a bus stop bench. But then, as a U.S. Senator, he doesn’t have to really know the law...only how to pontificate about it. God help us...a commie radical and an old doofus. Dumb and Dumber seriously in the running for President and V.P. of the U.S. Why not a goat and a sheep...man o’ man, we need some serious help here!

[fightinJAG]

Bumper Stickers . . . the one on Sarah’s Dad’s truck:

“Vegetarian: Just another name for a bad hunter.”

[GoLightly]

I thought it was to act as official representative of the US at state funerals.

[EDINVA]

And he’s been on the Judiciary Commmittee how long? And he served as its chairman for how many years ? And he has a say in who sits on the Supreme Court ?

[flyfree]

Yes, but what about the clause that names the VP President of the Senate? What was the rationale behind that?

Yes, that clause sets him up to preside over the senate. The title is President of the Senate. The full sentance is:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

In other words, he has a Legislative function as the leader of the Senate. It is purely a Legislative function. Like the Speaker of the House.

There are 2 Legislative branches in our government. Headed by 2 people: The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. If the President of the United States dies, the next in line is the leader of the Senate (aka the President of the Senate) and the person in line after that is the leader of the House (aka the Speaker of the House).

[Minus_The_Bear]

"Yep - between the two attorneys (Obama and Biden) they have half a legal brain."

Go easy on Joe! Maybe the kid who he cheats off of was sick that day.

[tflabo]

Our Che is more dangerous than your Che!

[fightinJAG]

Sarah Biden Vice-Presidential meltdown.

nro ^

Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:42:08 PM by hecht

Sarah Biden Vice-Presidential meltdown.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Journalists continue to ask, “What was John McCain thinking in selecting the gaffe-prone Gov. Sarah Palin?”

In what has now become a disturbing pattern, the Alaska governor seems either unable or unwilling to avoid embarrassing statements that are often as untrue as they are outrageous. Recently, for example, in an exclusive interview with news anchor Katie Couric, Palin gushed, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’ ” Apparently the former Alaskan beauty queen failed to realize that in 1929 there was neither widespread television nor was Franklin Roosevelt even President.

Sometimes the Idaho-native Palin seems to confuse and embarrass her own running mate. Shortly after her nomination, she introduced a “John McAmerica;” then she referred to the Republican ticket as the “Palin-McCain administration;” and finished by calling Sen. Obama, “Senator George Obama.”

The Palin gaffes seem to be endless: on her way to Washington to meet the national press corps, Palin, the mother of five, once again stumbled — this time characterizing Senator Biden as “Congressman Joe Biden,” who, she chuckled, was “good looking.”

↓ Keep reading this article ↓

This is an excerpt from

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2096171/posts

[Gene Eric]

>> “Vegetarian: Just another name for a bad hunter.”

that’s funny

[Tublecane]

“The Senate was originally set up to balance powers of the states against the power of the Fed”

I have to disagree with you there. The state governments themselves were the major bulwark against federal authority. The Senate is itself a federal body. Why would it have been instituted to restrain itself? It was established to be the more aristocratic legislative body, with a long-term (or longER-term) view of things. On a more practical level, it served to grant parity to less populous states.

[flyfree]

I thought it was to act as official representative of the US at state funerals.

Not according to the Constitution. In fact, all the VP duties that happen in modern times and the fact that he is associated with the Executive branch came about with Amendment 12 stating that we would have a VP run as a separate office from that of the President. Before that the person who came in 2nd was the VP. Still, the only duties of the VP in the Constitution remain in one sentence:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

And that sentence is in the Legislative branch section not the Executive branch section.

[fightinJAG]

You want funny?

Biden at the wheel.

And it's a little song that goes like this . . .

McCain Sings Streisand!

Enjoy! We deserve a humor break after this week, eh?!

[GoLightly]

Senators weren’t directly elected until the Constitution was amended. They were nominated by the legislative branches of the states. Direct election of Senators changed the Senate’s role.

[Tublecane]

“There are 2 Legislative branches in our government. Headed by 2 people: The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. If the President of the United States dies, the next in line is the leader of the Senate (aka the President of the Senate) and the person in line after that is the leader of the House (aka the Speaker of the House).”

I thought the Speaker was next in line after the VP.

By the way, I’ve always felt that the term “President pro-tem” implied that the leader of the Senate was only President when the VP wasn’t presiding. Am I right?

[GoLightly]

I was kidding, in response to someone saying his role was to play golf.

[tflabo]

Since Biden relishes in playing a major role in denying Judge Bork to the Supreme Court how about a little payback and we deny the brainiac Mr. Experience the vice-presidency!

A truly brilliant mind was rejected by the lesser cretins of the left!

[Fiji Hill]

...the most dangerous Vice President we've had in American history

In my opinion, that would have been Henry Wallace.

[flyfree]

You assume the VP was meant to be a part of the executive branch. Unless the president kicks it, VPs have absolutely no Constitutional role in that branch

You are absolutely correct. Just like the Speaker of the House has no Constitutional role in the Executive branch unless the President and VP die.

[Tublecane]

“Direct election of Senators changed the Senate’s role.”

Not fundamentally, in my opinion. How do you figure the Senate’s role changed?

[flyfree]

As I posted in another thread, it’s not as if he teaches a course on the Constitution or something! /s

Yes, I found the whole like of attack bizarre.

[GatorGirl]

That statement struck me as ridiculous and could only possibly appeal to the looney left of his base.

The ONLY person to whom Dick Cheney was remotely dangerous was the guy he accidentally shot!

[flyfree]

IMHO, direct election of the Senators brought them closer to the people and made them more of a political animal. They are now a “candidate” every 6 years.

[flyfree]

The ONLY person to whom Dick Cheney was remotely dangerous was the guy he accidentally shot!

When he said it, I told my wife, "He's speaking to his base here."

[Tublecane]

“A truly brilliant mind was rejected by the lesser cretins of the left!”

Here, here! Probably the best Constitutional scholar ever to be nominated for SCOTUS. And that includes John Jay, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers.

I bet Biden will get away scott free for implying Bork would take us back to Dred Scott, or at least Plessy.

[Tublecane]

“IMHO, direct election of the Senators brought them closer to the people and made them more of a political animal. They are now a ‘candidate’ every 6 years.”

They’re still relatively the more aristocratic body. But I can sympathize with the argument that democratizing the Senate made it more likely to involve itself in redistributionist schemes. Most people (including me) have no idea just what exactly the Senate is voting up to, only, they agree with the general notion that federal money exists to be passed around.

[GoLightly]

As I said earlier, the body was originally meant to be the voice of the states in the Federal government & the House was supposed to be the voice of the people in the Federal government. Direct election of Senators made the Senate into another body that was the voice of the “people.”

State interests no longer have a voice, so we end up with things like the feds holding highway funds back from states that refuse to lower speed limits to 55 mph. The Fed wasn’t supposed to reach into powers that were left to the state using the power of the purse & that is exactly what happened after the election of Senators was changed.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Support the President? You mean like Aaron Burr, who nearly stole the election from Jefferson, killed the former Secretary Of The Treasury, and fled south to start his own country?

[GoLightly]

IMHO, direct election of the Senators brought them closer to the people and made them more of a political animal. They are now a “candidate” every 6 years.

Exactly!

[Tublecane]

“As I said earlier, the body was originally meant to be the voice of the states in the Federal government”

I understand the concept that the Senate was meant to allow smaller states a voice in the federal government. However, the idea that the Senate was somehow a voice for the states against federal power is misguided. Just as it wasn’t the House’s job to fight for the people against the fed, it wasn’t the Senate’s job to fight for the states against the fed. They were feds themselves. They existed for the people and the gentry to both have access to federal power. I think you mistake the checks and balances within the legislative branch with the principle of federalism.

By the way, the states did not lose the impetus to oppose the federal government because of the democratization of the Senate. The Civil War got there first.