Comments on: Ending the Vice Presidency

By: Get Rid Of This, End That, Soon Enough It Will Add Up To Real Money « Around The Sphere

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:35:06 +0000

[...] http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ending_the_vice_presidency_/ [...]

By: Ending the Vice Presidency II

Ending the Vice Presidency II — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:59:38 +0000

[...] Lott’s attempted response to my response piece on “Ending the Vice Presidency” was, for some odd reason, rejected altogether by my commenting system. Rather than pasting [...]

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Another “Expert” Says We Should Get Rid Of The Vice-Presidency

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:58:11 +0000

[...] Joyner sums up the bone-headed stupidity of this suggestion quite nicely: This is insane. Seriously, we want a backup that’s independently elected and who could, [...]

By: Brett

Brett — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:41:53 +0000

I'd give the Vice President more powers, not eliminate it. For example, right now the Vice President's main official role (other than successor in case of assassination and/or death of the President) is casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate.

Why not extend that, and give the Vice President the power to introduce legislation into Senate committees? He couldn't vote on it (apart from tie-breaking) when it comes up to a vote, but he could introduce the legislation, and then argue for it both in committee and in the general voting body. It'd be a good way for a President to get the legislation he desires at least brought up to discussion.

Then again, it would be even more power to the Executive Branch, which is already quite powerful. Still, it would give the VP something to do.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:50:00 +0000

I would go the opposite route - allow the President to designate a Cabinet officer as Vice President.

I think Vice Presidents who assume office already have substantial problems in legitimacy -- "His accidency." A non-elected cabinet officer would have more such problems.

The other issue is that Cabinet officers are subject to Legislative oversight. A lot of politics (on both sides) and separation of powers issues would be in play.

That said, I think the death of the President should result in a new election within a year. Whether the VP or a cabinet officer is in charge in the meantime makes a lot less difference then.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:41:55 +0000

Lott disregards one of the important roles of the Vice President -- to unite the party behind its Presidential candidate. You can't bad mouth Henry Wallace and George H.W. Bush, without discounting the Presidencies of FDR and Reagan. These were faction-sealing VPs. Similarly, Gore, Cheney and Biden are all experience-assuring VPs. Getting rid of them mostly raises questions about the experience of their running mates.

By: Eric J

Eric J — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:39:07 +0000

I would go the opposite route - allow the President to designate a Cabinet officer as Vice President. It might require some additional jiggering of responsibilities so that the VP isn't presiding over the Senate for votes having to do with his/her own department, but it eliminates an entire bureaucracy and the need to find the VP "something to do."

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:22:19 +0000

I was amused to see that one of the half-baked ideas was presented by a dear old college chum of mine.

Isn't abolishing the vice presidency different from arguing for separate tickets?

It seems to me that there's no particularly good argument for abolishing the vice presidency but there's a pretty good one for giving the vice president some additional constitutional responsibilities and defining the office a little more. For example, it might be nice to codify whether the VP is a member of the executive branch of government.