Dick Cheney is the power behind the throne. Of course, he and Bush believe they are exempt from Presidential Executive Orders.

Still, Presidential Executive Orders during the War on Terror can be used by the executive branch to further destroy the Constitution and our liberties.

Read the Final Presidential Executive Order from the online book, "The Swiss Preserve Solution" at http:// http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.com/swisspreserve14.htm

US Government Guide information about Vice President of the United States
The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie.

"The Vice Presidency was an afterthought for the Constitutional Convention, put into the document in order to provide for orderly succession without resorting to election of someone from Congress to fill the vacancy. The Vice President is not a member of either the executive or the legislative branch. Constitutionally, the Vice President is not a subordinate of the President, who has no power to issue orders to the Vice President and who cannot remove him from office. (The Vice President can be removed only by impeachment.) But Vice Presidents have found that the way they gain influence in Washington is by subordinating themselves to the President. By doing so, they have become, since Dwight Eisenhower's administration, part of the inner circle of senior political advisers to the President."

"The president could not for instance tell the vice president how to vote in case of a tie"

Really? How do you know?

The following is the first sentence, in full, of Article 2:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

I can't imagine what "executive power" is, if not "power to delegate executive functions to members of the executive branch of government." Then again, you might think that VP is not part of the executive branch. Which is what Cheney claimed.

Also, according the Constitution, the VP has this title, oddly enough: "Vice-President." The word "vice," in this context, is typically defined as 'next in rank.' Giving the VP this title was an odd choice, on the part of the Framers, if they did not intend the VP to be subordinate to POTUS.

"Is there some kind of historical or textual support for your claim?"

Indeed, starting with the title the VP is given by the Constitution.

"as to Title 3, chapter 2, section 106, that seems to authorize the veep to hire people if the veep should accept to provide assistance to the President"

It would be good if you paid attention to what the statute actually says. It doesn't say 'here are some rules regarding the VP's ability to hire people, if VP decides, out of the goodness of his heart, to voluntarily carry out instructions issued by POTUS.' The statute says (paraphrase) 'here are some rules regarding the VP's ability to hire people, in order to carry out instructions issued by POTUS.'

The statute references "the performance of functions specially assigned to the Vice President by the President." The statute takes for granted that POTUS can 'assign' functions to VP. The statute doesn't suggest that POTUS 'assigns' functions to VP and then crosses all his fingers and toes hoping that VP will generously decide to take a break from his busy schedule in order to carry out those functions.

"it doesn't seem to me to be legislation authorizing the president to impress the vp into exec service generally"

I didn't claim that it's "legislation authorizing the president to impress the vp into exec service generally." I claimed that it's legislation reflecting what's obvious as a matter of common sense and basic Constitutional reality: POTUS gets to issue orders to VP, along with everyone else in the executive branch. That's the basic meaning of "executive Power," the phrase at the heart of Article 2. We don't need Section 106 to know this is true. Section 106 is just more proof that it's true.

"the vp is sort of part of the executive branch and sort of part of the legislative branch"

Nice job continuing to ignore what OVP actually said: "the Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch." Then again, maybe you'd like to explain to us why your bogus claims are less ridiculous than Cheney's bogus claims.

"Rahm Emanual's poster - I wouldn't put too much stock in it"

The poster is an exact expression of the statement I just cited. A statement you refuse to acknowledge.

"I'm getting pretty drunk here."

I wish you had mentioned that sooner. I wouldn't want to get between you and your beverage. But when you have a chance, hopefully you'll address the questions you've been ducking. Here's a quick review: why are consistently pretending that OVP didn't claim to be outside the executive branch? Why did you accuse Waxman of doing something he didn't do? And what's the basis for your "opinion" that Cheney is exempt from the EO?

Well, this is clearly a false choice. I mean, clearly, the vp is sort of part of the executive branch and sort of part of the legislative branch - regardless of whether he is subordinate to the executive. And Rahm Emanual's poster - I wouldn't put too much stock in it, or wag it into a law school class or anything. It's just polemics and doesn't really add much to a discussion of executive power. It's more of a frat thing than an intellectual thing, and don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against frat things.

And, as to Title 3, chapter 2, section 106, that seems to authorize the veep to hire people if the veep should accept to provide assistance to the President in connection with the performance of functions specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive duties and responsibilities, the Vice President is authorized. I suppose you could argue otherwise, but it doesn't seem to me to be legislation authorizing the president to impress the vp into exec service generally , much less for this specific issue.

Anyway, hurry up with with your arguments. I'm getting pretty drunk here.

"in this instance there doesn't seem to be any legislation on point"

In James' earlier post on this subject, he mentions Title 3, Chapter 2, § 106, which discusses how to "enable the Vice President to provide assistance to the President in connection with the performance of functions specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive duties and responsibilities." The law seems to take for granted what you find so hard to contemplate: that POTUS can indeed "go around ordering the vice president to take on executive functions."

You're wondering how the EO applies to VP. It's not complicated: VP is part of the executive branch, and the EO applies to any "entity" in the executive branch.

"my opinion currently is that presumptively it does dot"

You haven't explained your basis for claiming that Cheney is exempt from the EO.

"Can the president go around ordering the vice president to take on executive functions? Mmm. I don't see how."

POTUS can delegate "executive functions" to VP because the former is Chief Executive and the latter is part of the executive branch. Yes, there are limits to the former's control over the latter; POTUS cannot fire VP. But this is a distraction from the central point, that VP is part of the executive branch.

"I'm open to arguments that the pres has authority to impose orders on the vice president's office by virtue of merely being the president"

POTUS "has authority to impose orders on the vice president's office" because the former is Chief Executive and the latter is part of the executive branch. You can argue that POTUS lacks "authority to impose orders on the vice president's office" only if you argue that VP is not part of the executive branch. And that's indeed what Cheney has argued.

"that the veep has voluntarily accepted subordination to the pres"

There's nothing 'voluntary' about it. Either VP is indeed 'subordinate' to POTUS (except with regard to being firing-proof), or VP is part of the legislative branch, or VP is a fourth branch. This bizarre fourth-branch theory is indeed what Cheney has argued.

"some straw man about how stupid the veep is that he thinks he's not in the executive branch"

This is worth some further attention. You and some other people are trying hard, here and elsewhere, to promote the idea that Cheney never claimed "he's not in the executive branch," and that this is just "some straw man" invented by Waxman, a "made up bogus claim." Please consider the following statement, which James mentioned above:

The Vice Presidency 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.

As far as we can tell, that text came from OVP (pdf), and it indicates that Cheney is claiming what you claim he never claimed: "he's not in the executive branch." That text goes hand-in-hand with McBride's statement, which I cited earlier.

That text was noticed months ago by TPM. Back then, James worked hard to defend what OVP said. Your position is more entertaining: pretending OVP never said it.

I guess you're not going to explain why you're doing that, just as you're not going to explain why you accused Waxman of doing something he didn't do, and just as you're not to explain the basis for your "opinion" that Cheney is exempt from the EO.

The best argument I can see is the pres has asked the veep to voluntarily take on some executive duties involving the veep's office handling classified documents, and the veep has accepted. That seems to me the only obvious route by which the pres can impose orders onto the office of the vice president - that the veep has voluntarily accepted subordination to the pres in the instance of taking on this particular responsibility.

I'm open to arguments that the pres has authority to impose orders on the vice president's office by virtue of merely being the president, but they aren't obvious to me. I don't deny that might be because I am thick headed.

If you have facts to substantiate this remarkable assertion, you should let us in on the secret and tell us where they're hidden. Especially since you're claiming to not have "a partisan dog in the fight."

What you're doing is wishing a fact into existence.

"some straw man about how stupid the veep is that he thinks he's not in the executive branch"

It's not "some straw man." McBride said what she said. I realize you're determined to repeatedly pretend otherwise. What you're doing is wishing a fact out of existence.

"does the EO apply to the vice president's office. If so, why"

It plainly does apply, unless you want to argue that VP is somehow not really part of the executive branch. Which is precisely what McBride tried to do. But you're making life easy for yourself, and entertaining for the rest of us, by steadfastly ignoring her statement.

"my opinion currently is that presumptively it does dot"

This isn't the first time you've expressed that opinion, and this isn't the first time that I've challenged you to provide something remotely resembling a coherent, non-shifting rationale to back it up. Can you do that, without relying on your magic which makes facts come and go at will? If so, there's no time like the present.

It's fine and all to listen to partisans argue against some straw man about how stupid the veep is that he thinks he's not in the executive branch. But for me the much more interesting question, and the one I don't have a political dog in the fight of, is, does the EO apply to the vice president's office. If so, why; if not, why not.

As I said, my opinion currently is that presumptively it does dot, but arguably there are facts that might make the question come out the other way. I don't have a preference about how the question comes out. So, no, I don't have a political dog in the fight.