My thoughts on the VP debate - Page 3

The Jovial One · #21 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty

You aren't countering anything I said in my analysis. Biden claims the Constitution is explicit with respect to the vice presidency as an executive role. It is not. Biden doesn't understand the Constitution.

....or you don't understand what Biden actually said.

TheHat · #22 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jovial One

The sudden neocon concern for the constitution after 8 years of using it for toilet paper is touching.

But yes, Biden was correct. Article I DOES define the duties of the VP.

Ah, no.

He said Article I was the Executive Branch. Its not. Its the Legislative Branch, and the VP is the PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE INSIDE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

Article II is the Executive Branch.

Nice try, come back and play with a full deck.

Liberty · #23 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

huh? I think you were just proven wrong there Liberty. Jovial posted Biden's own words.

Jovial didn't post anything credible that counters my arguments.

Liberty · #24 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri

Oh, agreed. But the office of the Vice President is actually created in Article II, the Executive Branch. His single and paltry legislative role is spelled out in Article I, but that doesn't necessarily suggest that he's part of the Legislative Branch.

How is it "created" in the Article II. Article II simply states how he comes to office. The role of the Vice President is clearly defined in Article I, Section 3 - The Senate:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri

While the role of vice president has evolved over the years, even back then it was viewed mostly as a backup for the president, not a legislative role -- after all, it was awarded to the person who came in second in the presidential election.

It's only been since WWII that the vice presidency took any sort of Executive Role. The constitution gives the Vice President legislative powers but no executive powers.

Quote:

There's a reason the vice president's office is funded through the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

It was only after the Nixon administration that the office and budget of the Vice President came from the Executive Branch. Prior to that (and for the vast majority of our nation's history) it came from the Senate.

On the Constitutional issue, Biden is wrong and clearly confused.

The Jovial One · #25 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty

Jovial didn't post anything credible that counters my arguments.

I most certainly did.

Out of respect to you, I will try again.

1. He did not say Article I was the Executive Branch. Here's what he said.

Quote:

BIDEN: 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.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Now, let's look at that first paragraph. Have you ever been speaking aloud and then realized that you needed to clarify something you just said? I know I have. So, I will add a phrase, which I will put into parentheses, that will demonstrate what he actually meant.

Quote:

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, (and those duties are in) the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

See? That's why he follows the sentence in question with a further clarification. "He works in the Executive Branch."

Now, did he say Article I WAS the Executive Branch? Of course not. Look at the sentence as I altered it, and that is clear. The problem with speaking versus writing, is that once you say it, it's out there and you can't suck the words back into your mouth. That is why he added the sentence "He works in the Executive Branch."

Now, here are your choices. Either you believe that Biden added that sentence to clarify words he spoke that he wanted to make more clear... or you believe that a man who has served in the Senate for three decades knows less about the Constitution of the United States of America than a 10th grade Civics student. A reasonable person with no partisan axe to grind will go with the former. A hack will go with the latter.

Now... as far as which branch of government the VP belongs to.

Section 1 of Article II says this:

Quote:

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

You will notice that Article I defines how to elect Senators and Congressmen. It does NOT define how to elect the President and Vice President. That is done in Article II!!!

Section 4 defines how to remove officers of the Executive Branch by impeachment.

Quote:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Does the section refer to Congressmen? Senators? Leprechauns?

No. The President, the Vice President and all civil officers...

Because?

THEY ARE OFFICERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!!

Election and removal of members of the Legislative Branch? Article I.

Election and removal of members of the Executive Branch? Article II.
Thank you.

raytri · #26 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jovial One

He didn't say Article I says it's in the Executive Branch. He said Article I defines the duties.

Article II identifies the officers within the Executive Branch. The President, the Vice President and all civil officers.

Biden indisputably garbled the delivery. But he was generally correct.

WanRen · #27 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri

So here's what I saw:

Both candidates did better than expected. Biden was focused and knowledgeable, and Palin didn't freeze up.

It was obvious that Biden's strategy was to all-but-ignore Palin and attack McCain, while Palin's strategy was to all-but-ignore the actual questions and "speak directly to the American people." Indeed, at one point Biden called her for not answering the question, and Palin openly admitted that she wasn't going to. At another point, Gwen asked a question and Palin said "I'd like to talk about energy some more."

So if you were paying attention to that sort of thing, you'd see that Palin failed to answer many of the questions and was giving canned and scripted answers to others. She did handle some answers pretty well, and showed more depth than her media interviews conveyed. But she was obviously going for "likeable." She was so intent on not getting off-script that nearly all of Biden's attacks on McCain went unrebutted.

But for the average viewer, I think they saw two people sparring and neither landing a killing blow. Biden always answered the questions directly and in detail. Palin didn't, but she didn't embarass herself either. So the general impression was that she could hang.

Some detailed comments:

1. I kept wishing Biden would say "Gov. Palin didn't actually answer the question. I'm willing to give her 30 seconds of my time if she will, for once, simply answer the question directly and clearly."

2. Every time there was a complex question, Gwen directed it at Biden first. She did this three times in a row near the end of the debate, rather than alternating between the candidates. This struck me as odd and infuriating: Palin should have had to answer at least one of those questions without getting to hear Biden's answer first.

3. I think Biden chose some odd points to stake strong ground on. The windfall-profits tax is populist, for example, but a small thing that many reasonable people disagree is a good idea. I would have picked stronger points to emphasize.

4. I lost count of the times Palin used the word "maverick." Once or twice would have been effective; after the fifth time she had worn it out, exposing it for the gimmicky phrase it was. I think she lost viewers there.

5. Similarly, it was almost comical the way Palin transparently steered the topic to energy any chance she got. I think she mentioned "energy-producing state" at least five times as well. And like with "maverick", I think it wore out the phrase.

6. Gwen never asked a follow-up question to force Palin to actually answer a question.

7. Speaking of Gwen, does anybody think her performance was in any way biased against Palin? If anything, I think she coddled the governor.

8. The "gay rights" question was the most interesting of the entire night, forcing both candidates to address an issue that plays strongly one way with their bases but another way with the electorate at large.

9. Biden scored an effective hit late in the debate when he nearly choked up talking about his wife's death and his injured kids. That did a great job of canceling out Palin's efforts to claim the "I'm a woman and a mom who understands what you're going through" mantle. I think they both came off as in touch with average people.

10. Anyone else chuckle at Palin repeatedly calling the general in charge of Afghanistan "McClellan"? His real name is McKeirnan. McClellan is the Union general that Lincoln fired because he seemed uninterested in actually fighting the Confederates.

11. Similarly, Biden nearly suffocated trying to get a phrase out at one point -- I can't remember what the actual phrase was!

Given the totally different expectations of the two candidates, I don't think either candidate decisively won or lost. But since Palin had more to lose, she probably came out looking better than she did going in. I don't expect this debate to move the needle very much, but if it does it might move it slightly in McCain's direction.

What's your take when ask if by chance they become the President.

IMO, Palin is just not ready both to be President and Vice President, maybe four years from now she will be ready.

Liberty · #28 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jovial One

Article II identifies the officers within the Executive Branch. The President, the Vice President and all civil officers.

No it doesn't, it defines who can be disqualified from office (note the heading of the Section 4). Members of the Judiciary are clearly understood to be "civil officers of the United States," with your strange reading of the Constitution, we should also consider them officers of the Executive Branch.

There is some disagreement among constitutional scholars as to whether the term "civil officers" refers also to member of the Legislative Branch (although we have had one case of a Senator being impeached), but most would agree they are excluded.

Quote:

CIVIL OFFICER. The constitution of the United States, art. 2, s. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments; of the executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments; of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. Rawle on government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. Rawle on the Const. 213; 2 Story, Const. Sec. 790; a senator of the United States, it the Const. 213; 2 Story, Const. Sec. 790; a senator of the United States, it was decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in was decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the constitution. Senate Journals, 10th January, 1799; 4 Tuck. Bl. Com. the constitution. Senate Journals, 10th January, 1799; 4 Tuck. Bl. Com. Appx. 57, 58; Rawle, Const. 213; Serg. on Const. Law, 376; Story, Const. Appx. 57, 58; Rawle, Const. 213; Serg. on Const. Law, 376; Story, Const. Sec. 791. Sec. 791.

http://www.law-dictionary.org/CIVIL+...=CIVIL+OFFICER

Sorry, but you're as confused about the Constitution as Biden is.

TheHat · #29 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanRen

What's your take when ask if by chance they become the President.

IMO, Palin is just not ready both to be President and Vice President, maybe four years from now she will be ready.

Well with all due respect, the people have spoken/voted twice to say Biden isnt ready.

That question, is such a dumb question all the way around.

I mean, does anybody really think that either candidate is going to say:

"No, Gweyn, I am not ready. In fact, I am going to walk off the stage right now and save the people's time."

Talk about a Miss Teen USA question....lol.

Liberty · #30 (**permalink**) 10-03-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jovial One

Now, did he say Article I WAS the Executive Branch? Of course not.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never made that claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jovial One

You will notice that Article I defines how to elect Senators and Congressmen. It does NOT define how to elect the President and Vice President. That is done in Article II!!!

I see, so the duties of the vice-president are defined in article 1 as "President of the Senate" under the description of the Senate, but we should consider him part of the executive branch because section II describes how he is elected. Absurd.

The reason Section II describes how the vice president is elected is because at the time the vice president was the runner-up to the president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jovial One

Section 4 defines how to remove officers of the Executive Branch by impeachment.

Does the section refer to Congressmen? Senators? Leprechauns?

No. The President, the Vice President and all civil officers...

Because?

THEY ARE OFFICERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!!

Again, you are clearly confused, as I've described above along with the relevant case law on the subject.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain camp wants to swap veep debate for first prez debate	ObamaSuperStar	Elections & Campaigns	5	09-25-2008 01:33 AM
Democratic Debate Thoughts	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-21-2008 09:00 PM
Your thoughts.	taxpayer7	Political Opinions & Beliefs	9	09-24-2007 06:22 PM
some thoughts	political	Forum Help, Feedback, Etc.	2	07-09-2006 07:10 AM
These are my uh, thoughts	King-Cotton	Political Opinions & Beliefs	3