One commenter makes a point that renders the Hillary possibility moot. “Of course, the big problem will be to convince Dick Cheney to resign from the post.” The interesting thing is that Cheney might be quite right not to resign.
After all, the elections are to determine what entities serve in the Executive branch. The Vice-President’s office, by contrast, is not an “entity within the executive branch.” It is true the Constitution says the VP will be ‘chosen for the same term’, i.e. a four-year term, and that these shall end simultaneously: “The terms of the President and the Vice-President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” But there is apparently no constitutional provision for determining how the choice of VP will be made – since, to repeat, the stuff about how the election will run is in subsection II, which begins “The executive power shall be vested …” Obviously nothing to do with the VP’s office. It seems, then, a colorable argument can (and should!) be made that, constitutionally, no means exist for forcing Cheney from office, should he choose to stay on. No reason why a fresh term for him shouldn’t start at noon on January 20th. There is a lot of stuff about balloting for VP in the Constitution. People even cared enough to amend that stuff, apparently. (No accounting for taste.) But this balloting must be only a feel-good, ceremonial add-on to the Executive selection process. (Rather like the process whereby, in a monarchy, the people are invited to acclaim the new King.) This is shown by the fact that, in practice, the VP balloting is pro forma. The candidate picks. But no one thinks the VP, once picked, continues to serve at the President’s pleasure. That would be absurd. Apparently it has always been the case that serving VP’s have volunteered to leave, with the Presidents they served alongside. There is no reason to expect this rather curious arrangement to persist. Obama/Cheney ’08!
More seriously, I never thought about it much, but what do people think about the fact that Presidential candidates get to pick their running-mates, in effect? I don’t think there would be much advantage in being a stickler for holding a truly independent ballot, possibly cramming an unwelcome choice down the Presidential candidate’s throat. But the Constitution does seem to allow for the latter. It seems like a major shift in status, at least conceptually. Wikipedia: “The last presidential candidate to not name a vice presidential choice, leaving the matter up to the convention, was Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1956. The convention chose Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver over Massachusetts Senator (and later president) John F. Kennedy.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 32 comments }
P O'Neill 01.07.08 at 3:46 am
It’s still a shame, on top of all the other shames, that Cheney was just competent enough to remember to move his residency out of Dallas in 2000 before running into the problem of the constitution preventing electoral delegates for voting for president & vp from the same state. That little potential oversight would have saved us so much trouble.
Which is a reminder of another issue. Bush didn’t pick Cheney. Cheney picked Cheney.
Michael Bérubé 01.07.08 at 3:50 am
Clearly, John, the only reasonable option is to impeach Cheney now. And that’s why I think this guy has recently emerged as the perfect VP candidate for Obama.
Robert the Red 01.07.08 at 4:04 am
Nixon in 2008! Or is that the Chardonnay speaking?
phil 01.07.08 at 4:18 am
“The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.] The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
U.S. Const. Amend. XII.
JP Stormcrow 01.07.08 at 4:52 am
And that’s why I think this guy has recently emerged as the perfect VP candidate for Obama.
Well, they’d certainly wrap up the “3 A’s” vote—Acid, Amnesty and Abortion. Ah who am I kidding? That was 36 years ago, no one cares about those things now.
John Holbo 01.07.08 at 5:14 am
But Phil, you are failing to consider the point that Amend XII only amends the bits that have to do with where ‘executive power shall be vested’. Since we aren’t talking about the executive, none of this stuff is obviously relevant (interesting thought it may be, and worthy of inclusion in any complete history of political manners.)
A 01.07.08 at 5:20 am
You gotta feel for Hillary. She could potentially be the first woman president ever, yet people are going around calling her the status quo.
Quo Vadis 01.07.08 at 6:43 am
You gotta feel for Hillary. She could potentially be the first woman president ever, yet people are going around calling her the status quo.
Someone somewhere quipped: “Bill Clinton’s campaign song was Fleetwood Mac’s ‘Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow’. Hillery’s should be ‘Don’t stop thinking about yesterday'”
I think that much of her appeal has been nostalgia for the ’90s. Given what has happened since, that’s not bad, but it’s not as exciting as something entirely new.
Ben Alpers 01.07.08 at 6:45 am
You gotta feel for Hillary. She could potentially be the first woman president ever, yet people are going around calling her the status quo.
To a great extent she only has herself–or rather Mark Penn–to blame.
yucca 01.07.08 at 11:36 am
if VPs were chosen differently, the US could start to look a lot like the Roman Republic with its two consuls.
I have always thought that lone leadership is overrated… america might want to lead the way
MR. Bill 01.07.08 at 11:53 am
Given that Mr. Cheney has discovered the hither-to unknown “Fourth Branch of Government”, he, as the explorer in this strange new land, owns it, so to speak. It’s gonna be difficult to get him out of there…
I recommend explosives.
Ginger Yellow 01.07.08 at 12:08 pm
“It’s still a shame, on top of all the other shames, that Cheney was just competent enough to remember to move his residency out of Dallas in 2000 before running into the problem of the constitution preventing electoral delegates for voting for president & vp from the same state. ”
Cheney is by all accounts an outstanding bureaucratic/political manoeuverer. His competency in this field is not in question, as should be obvious by the way he’s utterly outplayed the Democrats and any opponents in the executive branch. It’s when his ideas interesect with the real world that he runs into problems.
DB 01.07.08 at 12:35 pm
I have no problem with Cheney continuing to serve in some Federal institution, preferably one that actually is not part of any of the 3 branches of govt.
Hanspeter 01.07.08 at 1:07 pm
John:
Amendment XII clearly says
No where does it mention anything about who is or isn’t a part of the executive branch. You say:
That previous quote is exactly how the choice of VP is made (chosen by the members of the Electoral College upon instructions given to them by the people of their home states).
The VP’s term expires on January 20th (Amendment XX). Once that happens, he is no longer VP and whoever was chosen by the Electoral College becomes the new VP. I realize you were being whimsical, but whims should at least be based on some reality.
For your 3rd paragraph, it used to be that #1 in Electoral college votes became the Prez, and #2 became the VP. This was changed for the 1804 and beyond elections to include separate EC ballots for each (precisely because Adams and Jefferson hated each other).
Matt Weiner 01.07.08 at 1:14 pm
I too support Cheney continuing to serve for a long term in a federal institution.
Mrs Tilton 01.07.08 at 1:19 pm
Indeed, as long as it’s the right sort of federal institution, he ought to serve for life.
Jeff 01.07.08 at 1:38 pm
#11: Mark Twain – “If such a government cannot be overthrown otherwise than by dynamite, then thank God for dynamite.”
abb1 01.07.08 at 1:39 pm
The Vice-President is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three branches. He has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union.
It’s in The Constitution. My copy, anyway.
Danielle Day 01.07.08 at 1:50 pm
One of the many, many things destroyed in the fire in Cheney’s West Wing office (remember?), along with tapes, documents, emails and DVDs, was the Constitution.
joseph duemer 01.07.08 at 2:34 pm
“. . . no means exist for forcing Cheney from office, should he choose to stay on.”
How about a couple of federal marshals with tasers?
Glen Tomkins 01.07.08 at 3:01 pm
Emergency back-up president
That’s what the VP is. Sure, he presides over the Senate, and gets a vote to break ties in that august body, but his real job is to sit around ready in case the president buys the farm, or goes crazy (well, crazy in some socially unacceptable manner), or is removed on impeachment.
The Founders didn’t envision parties, much less a two-party system, so yes, you’re absolutely right, the office as they wrote the rules could easily be filled quite independently of the presidential choice, since the Founders didn’t envision any party linkage existing to join the two as a team. But, of course we do have two parties, very much at each others throats. It would seem imprudent to fill a job which essentially consists of sitting around waiting for something bad to happen to the president, with someone who might be the least inclined to try to arrange for bad things to happen to the president. Thus it makes great good sense to have the presidential candidate choose the VP candidate, and have them run as a team. The two parties both defer at their conventions to their presidential candidates’ choice of VP, and all the states have “team voting” in their rules for how they designate their electoral college votes. It is from this party habit, and these state laws, not the Constitution, that we derive the VP as a presidential designee.
mds 01.07.08 at 6:00 pm
It’s still a shame, on top of all the other shames, that Cheney was just competent enough to remember to move his residency out of Dallas in 2000 before running into the problem of the constitution preventing electoral delegates for voting for president & vp from the same state. That little potential oversight would have saved us so much trouble.
Assuming the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, didn’t strike down the requirement “just this once,” using a deliberately mendacious reading of the Equal Protection Clause advanced by Justices who don’t usually think the Equal Protection Clause should even apply to black Americans. And, well, that’s obviously a rather big assumption.
PS 01.07.08 at 6:32 pm
“… no means exist for forcing Cheney from office, should he choose to stay on.”
I disagree with that. The guy looks like a reanimated corpse (my diagnosis based on extensive video). I think he can, and probably should, be declared legally dead.
shpx.ohfu 01.07.08 at 7:20 pm
I would’t mess with Dick. His powers extend down to the subatomic level.
MSS 01.07.08 at 10:16 pm
John, if in asking us how we felt about “a truly independent ballot” for VP you meant in a hypothetical world where the Pres and VP were actually elected by the people, the idea of independent elections is not a new one.
That would be the current Philippine system. It was also the case in Brazil’s 1945-64 democracy. And Paraguay recently held a VP-only election to fill a vacancy.
Idiot/Savant 01.07.08 at 10:23 pm
More seriously, I never thought about it much, but what do people think about the fact that Presidential candidates get to pick their running-mates, in effect?
These things happen in an elective monarchy.
Barbara 01.08.08 at 1:43 am
Don’t you all find it puzzling that so many here say Cheney/Bush should be impeached (as do 89% of those who’ve answered the MSNBC poll to date), and yet so few say they’ll risk a single primary vote on Dennis Kucinich? As far as I know, none of the other candidates has signed onto HR 333. I say, before I put my vote where my heart is, let each candidate do so. Oh, wait — Kucinich already has.
Matt 01.08.08 at 2:48 am
This comment thread is painful.
va 01.08.08 at 5:33 am
If there’s nothing compelling Cheney to leave office, is there any especial reason the public would have to know that he has remained VP? Would he just show up, say, when the new Democratic president has unfortunately kicked the bucket after a few weeks on the job, put down his briefcase and declare, well, here I am! Or would he in fact have to occupy offices and such? I’m going with “doesn’t need to occupy offices” on the grounds that the vice presidency is vested in one “person.”
reason 01.08.08 at 10:26 am
matt #28
Don’t read it then!
Painful for whom? How?
More importantly does your comment somehow improve this state of affairs and enlighten others? Hell I didn’t know that this blog had become an agony column!
John 01.08.08 at 4:26 pm
In terms of other options than “the candidate picks”, this is a relatively recent innovation. During the 50s and earlier, the Conventions chose a VP. I think going back to this would actually be a good PR move for either party. It would generate excitement about the convention that doesn’t otherwise work, and probably would generate press good will, as well. The problem, I think, is vetting – someone could get through who might embarrass the candidate. But It’d be fun.
That the VP is elected alongside the president, and can’t be chosen separately, is determined by the electoral college. Since people are voting for one set of electors to choose both president and VP, they’re going to be voting for both together.
The Local Crank 01.10.08 at 6:26 am
“Don’t you all find it puzzling that so many here say Cheney/Bush should be impeached (as do 89% of those who’ve answered the MSNBC poll to date), and yet so few say they’ll risk a single primary vote on Dennis Kucinich?”
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest it has something to do with the fact that Kucinich is such an overwheening flake that he thanks RON frickin’ PAUL (the candidate of neo-Nazis, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, gold standard woolly-heads, and Confederate apologists) would make a jim dandy running mate.
Comments on this entry are closed.