Thing is though, they’re adults who respect our Constitution, so they won’t.

So, any of you gibbering monkeys want to point out just what the Executive duties of the vice-president entail? What powers and responsibilities beyond what I have mentioned are enumerated in the Constitution? In other words, can any of you point out precisely where I’m wrong, and cite your sources?

Swing and-a-miss

Like I said Jay, you’re a dipshit. Please wipe the Cheetoh dust from your lips and the tears from your eyes. Cheney is gone, and so are crackpot theories about the Constitutional power of the Veep.

Historically VP’s have done more or less in the way advising the POTUS and pro-actively taking on responsibilities of their own. Cheney making up shit about his “Legislative” authority does not count as a meaningful contribution to the history of Vice Presidential power.

Wow. Jay Tea. You actually sourced a primary document instead of second or third hand spin on something you never actually read. Good for you. Could this be an attempt to get a jump start on a New year’s resolution?

Of course, everything you’ve written about the subject is your usual mishmash of idiocy.

Cheney actually understands the vice-presidency a bit better than most people. For instance, he was the first person I know to bring up that the sole power relegated to the office is spelled out in Article I, Section 3 — which covers the Senate, not the Executive Branch.

Really? Seriously? The first time you ever heard that the powers of the vice-president are spelled out in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution was when you heard Cheney reference it? Tell me, Jay Tea, when you say you “read” the Constitution, don’t you really mean “skimmed” for references to free cheetos and porn? JK, buddy!

Of course, I understand what you really meant was that this was the first time you ever heard anyone try to use the Constitution to spin the vice-presidency as a part of the legislative branch. Guess, Jay Tea? That was news to a lot of people, including a whole host of respected Constitutional scholars. But why was he making that argument? Because he claims that the vice president is not subject to the same laws governing the handling of classified national security information in order to keep his records secret from the public and out of the hands of the National Archives.

But Cheney has also argued that he his not subject to congressional oversight, as when he claimed executive privilege when Congress demanded access to records of his meetings with Enron officials in 2002.

In what’s known as The Plum Book, an official directory of government senior officials, Cheney’s office refused to reveal who worked there, citing instead that, the VP is “a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).” http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/22/nation/na-cheney22

So if we’re to take Cheney’s word for it, the vice presidency is a Constitutional office unto itself, that serves in both the legislative branch and the executive branch but is subject to the oversight and responsibilities of neither.

Far from your assertion that “the vice-president’s power is absolutely non-existent unless the president delegates it,” Cheney is arguing that the vice-presidency is a power unto itself.

That’s a pretty odd fucking duck, indeed, Jay Tea. Especially when you consider that underlying principle of the entire Constitution is the concept of checks and balances.

I’ll give you credit for not even trying to understand what’s at stake in Cheney’s arguments here, as you said, you didn’t “bring this up to argue about how that should be interpreted.”
You clearly lack even the google skills to mount any such argument, either way.

I would, however, like to also point out the sheer idiocy of the second half of that sentence: “… but to point out that some fascinating intellectual arguments about the true nature of the office.”

You’re right, Jay Tea. What an amusing brain teaser Cheney presents us with. What a charming game with which to while away the idle hours in detached, abstract contemplation of our founding document. Give me a break.

This isn’t, as you put it, some “fascinating intellectual argument” devoid of all real world consequences. Cheney is actually arguing that, in fact, his office is above and/or beyond the laws that govern just about every other branch and office of government. If his interpretation prevails, it would have some very serious consequences for the nature of our democracy.

Why don’t you spend some time contemplating that and get back to us.

Tell you what, I need your kid to help me with a little turf war I started.
Oops, your kid died. Goddammit, now I’ll have to tell someone on my staff to send a letter. Shit. What a waste of my time.

Also, you should read the symptoms & definition of a sociopath. To them, other people are either marked for elimination, or they are tools to be used. Nothing Bush or Cheney has done has shown them to care about any another human being.

Once again, tying the Vice-Presidency to the Legislature, who passed that particular law.

So, let’s say the legislature passed a law that were to affect what a judge could do such as, sentencing minimums. Would that suggest that judges were part of the legislative branch simply because it’s the legislature that passed the law?

Jay,
You fool, this site has a finite number of jibbering monkeys.

I have read the Constitution. I actually own a copy. And everything I have said is perfectly in agreement with the Constitution.

The duties of the vice-president are to preside over the Senate, casting a vote only in the event of a tie, and to succeed the president should the office become vacant prior to the end of the term. That is what some wags have flippantly and succinctly described as “inquiring as to the health of the president.”

So, any of you gibbering monkeys want to point out just what the Executive duties of the vice-president entail? What powers and responsibilities beyond what I have mentioned are enumerated in the Constitution? In other words, can any of you point out precisely where I’m wrong, and cite your sources?

Come on. It can’t be that easy if imbeciles like Jaim and Zython can spot them.

J.

No, Jay, the other duty is to protect the time-space continuum. READ THE CONSTITUTION!

It’s what Sarah Palin was talking about when she said she “didn’t know” what the job would entail — because the vice-president’s power is absolutely non-existent unless the president delegates it.

*Pats Jay on the head* Whatever helps you sleep at night.

*Waves Jay away* Go back to reading your Moonie Times.

Constitutionally, the vice-presidency is an appendix. Most of the time, it’s utterly pointless. The only reason some veeps have had things to do besides go to state funerals and sit in the Senate on occasion has beeen because the President has entrusted them with some special authority. Indeed, that only changed relatively recently, when Dan Quayle was put in charge of NASA and that was later codified into law under Al Gore.

Once again, tying the Vice-Presidency to the Legislature, who passed that particular law.

It’s what Sarah Palin was talking about when she said she “didn’t know” what the job would entail — because the vice-president’s power is absolutely non-existent unless the president delegates it. She was saying that she wanted some assurances that she would actually have some responsibilities and duties before she accepted.

Oh, and using naughty words doesn’t make you a grownup, Jaim. It simply demonstrates that you’re an immature asswipe.

J.

What horse-shit. The power spelled out is to break ties in the Senate. This doesn’t make him a member of the Legislative branch.

But now that adults are back in power you can go back to your sippie cup, dipshit.

Cheney actually understands the vice-presidency a bit better than most people. For instance, he was the first person I know to bring up that the sole power relegated to the office is spelled out in Article I, Section 3 — which covers the Senate, not the Executive Branch.

He is absolutely right about that making the vice-presidency a seriously odd duck — nominally a part of the Executive Branch, but its sole day-do-day function part of the Legislative (to the point of sometimes voting in the Senate). I don’t bring this up to argue about how that should be interpreted, but to point out that some fascinating intellectual arguments about the true nature of the office.

Kind of like how Bill Clinton tried to dodge the Paula Jones lawsuit by claiming that, as Commander in Chief, he was exempt from lawsuits by the law that covered active-duty military personnel. If you set aside the weaselly motivations that brought about both, they make great fodder for abstract arguments.

J.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/

You proceed to “debunk” Dave’s comment by quoting the Washingto Times? The cult newspaper? The only paper possibly more discredited than the New York Post? Le Sigh.

I’ve no doubt it’s a lie, of course. But I suspect Cheney knws the Dems will never try to really contradict him. They’re so afraid of admitting what limited amount they did know that they would prefer the whole thing fade away.

Followed closely by Teddy Roosevelt, no doubt. His Veep tenure was less than a year also.

Depending on your definitions of “unnecessary”, these wars were all MUCH more deadly. (Or if it was just the “deaths” that were unnecessary, then you could certainly point to mismanagement in even the “necessary” wars (Revolution, Civil, WWI, WWII) that lead to more than 8,000 casualties.)

As for best Veep, I’d vote Truman.