But let's face it -- Joe Biden sure knows how to confuse history and the Constitution based on [many of] his statements. Recently, Joe proved he didn't know that FDR wasn't president when the Great Depressin began, nor that there was no television in 1929. Then, in Thursady's VP debate, he made the following statement:
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. 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 Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
Biden's statement is actually quite confusing. While it is true that Article I "defines" the role of the vice-president, it doesn't "define" it as being in the Executive Branch. It merely "defines" the role of the veep in regards to the legislature -- as president of the Senate. Article II defines the role of the Executive Branch in government.
Biden was chastising Dick Cheney's apparent "expansive use" of the VP's office when he made that statement in the debate. So, was Joe arguing that the VP -- according to the Constitution -- only can be the president of the Senate? If so, why does Joe later state that the VP's job is “to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought”? I looked through Article II and didn't find anywhere that the VP's job is as what Biden states here. So, Joe, why are you so picky about the veep's role when it comes to Cheney, but for others ...? Hell, for that matter, Joe, where in the Constitution does it mention a presidential cabinet? I don't see anything in Article II about a cabinet. Therefore, should presidents (in Biden's parlance) "realize that Article II of the Constitution defines the role of the Executive Branch," and "that there's no cabinet mentioned at all?" Isn't that an "expansive use" of Executive Branch power, Joe?
(Thanks to the interscholastic GOOCH for the assist with this post.)
I think it's fairly accepted that the president can choose how to delegate his power and duties. But doesn't it make sense that his subordinates should then be subject to all the same laws as the president? Cheney's argument is that, due to his role in the Senate, he can exercise delegated executive power while not being held to oversight laws that govern the president.
Posted by: Nels at October 5, 2008 04:47 AMWell, Biden basically makes Cheney's argument then, Nels, as he argued that the Article I defines the role of the VP -- the Legislative Branch!
Posted by: Hube at October 5, 2008 07:55 AM