How is it not a check?

I mean, I provided a legitimate source.

Are you somehow thinking that because he performs the check in the legislative branch's building that it isn't a function of the executive branch?

Or that the title "President of the Senate" implies that he's actually a member of the Legislative branch? What does "Chief Legislator" mean about the presidency, then?

6/26/2007 8:38:13 PM

I just don't think casting a tie-breaking vote is a legitimate check.

6/26/2007 8:40:17 PM

*dies*

6/26/2007 8:41:44 PM

Okay, fine, I looked it up. It looks like the VP's tie-breaking vote is most definitely considered a check on the legislative branch. I guess I'll say that I think it's a weak check.

6/26/2007 8:59:55 PM

A weak check is still a check.

The point is... Dick Cheney is full of poop.

6/26/2007 9:02:19 PM

Agreed.

6/26/2007 9:07:33 PM

i think even hooksaw can agree that Cheney is a poop-filled fuckface.

it's also well known that Cheney drinks the blood of newborn babies, and stomps on kittens.

6/27/2007 1:43:54 AM

Quote :

"I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney isn't a part of the executive branch, but he's also president of the Senate, which is a part of the legislative branch of our federal government."

Quote :

"In any event, (1) I do think that the VP should be/is a part of the executive branch; (2) VP Cheney is trying to have it both ways, which is not right; and (3) the issue in question is much more complicated than some here seem to think."

Quote :

"Can some of you not read or do you just not want to comprehend my position? Have you ever heard of playing devil's advocate? I am making the following point: '[T]he issue in question is much more complicated than some here seem to think.'"

hooksaw

6/27/2007 2:49:40 AM

Quote :

"SourPatchin:Anybody who would jump to defend him or spin this shit is a fool. He's turned his back on his party, the people, and what we understand is our government. I think folks would be a lot more angry about this if it wasn't so absurd and hilarious."

6/27/2007 2:53:17 AM

Quote :

"VP Cheney is trying to have it both ways, which is not right. . . ."

Quote :

"Have you ever heard of playing devil's advocate?"

hooksaw

6/27/2007 3:18:05 AM

Quote :

"Article 2. 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:"

There is no playing devil's advocate here. You lose. Darth Cheney's role in the Senate only applies to tie votes.

6/27/2007 4:20:33 AM

i think hooksaw is actually being fairly reasonable here. (relatively speaking... you still have to get past the initial inflammatory and overly-defensive personal attacks)

so I'll try and keep the tone moderate, and focus on the two places where he's off the mark:

for one thing, the issue is not, as he says, "more complicated than [we] think".

Plain and simple, Cheney is attempting to stonewall any attempts to get information about White House business links to his energy buddies, who by all accounts, have been profiting tremendously in the past 6 years. Big Surprise there, eh? But the difference now is he doesn't have his compliant lackeys running the Senate and House oversight committees to squash investigatory probes, so now he's resorted to trying unprecedented and very sketchy legalistic maneuvers, if only to give him some more time.

Even Cheney's republican friends cant even defend this. the best they can muster is Damage Control: saying "this is a complicated legal issue, that the courts will have to work out." And so, hooksaw, like a thoughtful republican, says the same thing.

the other issue is his emphasis that "The Vice President is President of the Senate" ... as if this somehow implies that the VP is less a part of the Executive Branch. This emphasis is just a distraction. The position of "Senate President" has almost no power or authority whatsoever. With an even number of senators, there has to be some method to break the inevitable tie votes. The Executive Branch gets the benefit of being able to "nudge" the Senate in this case by supplying a tiebreaking vote, if and only if there is a tie.

Quote :

" Electoral system Our Constitution's framers created the vice-presidency almost as an afterthought. In setting up a system for electing presidents ... when loyalty to one's state was stronger than to the new nation ... [with] the danger of a crippling deadlock ... [each presidential elector] was to vote for two persons ... requiring one candidate from outside their own states. ... the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be president. The one coming in second would be vice president. In the election of 1800, however, the constitutional system for electing presidents broke down, as both Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. This impasse [led to] the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution ... wherein electors cast separate ballots for president and for vice president. Presidential succession The Constitution established the office of vice president primarily to provide a successor in the event of the president's death, disability, or resignation. The document was vague ... stating, in cases of presidential death or disability, the "Powers and Duties of the said Office . . . shall devolve on the Vice President" (Article II, section 1). What did "devolve" mean? Would the vice president become acting president until another was chosen, or would he become president in his own right? ... but they left no doubt about vice-presidential succession. There was to be none. "In the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of the President of the United States" the Senate would simply choose a president pro tempore. In 1947, after the vice-presidency had been vacant for most of a presidential term, Congress ... named the House Speaker as the first official to succeed if a president died during a vacancy in the vice-presidency, followed by the president pro tempore. Vice-Presidential Duties The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" -- http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm "

the function of the VP in the Senate is secondary to his primary role. theres no way you can suggest the power or authority of the VP is legislative rather than executive.





[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 5:10 AM. Reason : ]

6/27/2007 4:48:16 AM

Quote :

"A VP has a "check" on the legislative branch? It's called a vote--a VP actually votes to break ties in the Senate."

hooksaw

6/27/2007 9:42:25 AM

yeah, i don't really think that constitutes
a "check".

confirming judicial appointments are a check.
vetoing legislation from the Congress is a check.
ruling on the constitutionality of legislation is a check.

the occasional tie-breaking vote? that's not a "check". that's a "nudge" in favor of the Executive Branch's party position.

6/27/2007 1:40:10 PM

Cheese and crackers, people.

It's a check.

I know we all typically think of a check as more proactive than this, but it most certainly is part of our system of checks and balances.

6/27/2007 4:27:37 PM

Quote :

"VP Cheney is trying to have it both ways, which is not right. . . ."

Quote :

"Have you ever heard of playing devil's advocate?"

hooksaw

To HockeyRoman: I lose nothing--you are an idiot.

To joe_shithead: I am not a Republican.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 4:34:13 PM

Quote :

"I know we all typically think of a check as more proactive than this, but it most certainly is part of our system of checks and balances."

I think I agree with joe and hooksaw on this, how does casting the tie breaking vote in the senate check or balance legislative or judicial power?

6/27/2007 4:59:26 PM

It's the executive having a hand in the operations of the legislative branch. Thus offering a check/balance on legislative power.

Look... if anyone wants to debate this point they should really provide a source. I understand that it doesn't immediately strike people as a check or balance, but it is.

Seriously.


^^"Hey, I was just playing devil's advocate, really! lol!"


[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 5:07:25 PM

Quote :

"[hooksaw] : I am not a Republican"

and, apparently, neither is Bill O'Reilly. whodathunkit.

6/27/2007 6:12:14 PM

Look. . .in yet another thread--it's hooksaw derangement syndrome!

6/28/2007 2:45:32 AM

'bligatory

6/28/2007 3:00:41 AM