I have read the US Constitution more than once and I know
and understand and I am quite aware of the clause that seems to suggest the VP
can move in and vote anytime there is a tie.
The clause states “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
But a student of the Constitution might just reasonably conclude that the Constitution is at war with itself.
The Constitution struggles to reconcile the VP clause with another one that says:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Does the word all mean ALL? If the VP has a voice at any time, then the separation of powers is broken down. ALL does not mean ALL any more.
If the VP steps in at any time for any reason, then some of the power of the legislative has been usurped by the Executive, and the Congress no longer has ALL of the legislative power. When you have one party in control of all three branches of government, then the ideology becomes more important than the reality and the partisans mindlessly vote the party line. As a result we continue to spiral down the path that ideologies without any logistical structure usually take us.
Simply restated: One clause of the Constitution is at war with another clause. One clause grants ALL legislative powers and another one takes it away.
I have also read and understood the Federalist papers, all of them; some more than once, some many times.
The Federalist Papers are a collection of about 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They wrote these papers concurrent with the writing of the Constitution.
Within these writings, they describe the thought processes and the discussion among the Founders.
Some of the Founders were vehemently against giving the VP any vote at all as they saw this as a breach against the walls of separation of power.
But there is no disagreement among them as to when this VP tie breaking power should be used, if at all. The Founders, according to the Federalist Papers, were in total agreement that such tie breaking intervention should only be used once a bill has been introduced and fully debated and discussed by the whole Senate and a FINAL VOTE taken and there is a 50-50 tie
The VP tie breaking power was never intended to overcome a procedural vote, in this case, to open discussion on a bill that none, save a few agenda driven types, have any idea what it says.
With one party in power, the Constitution continues to stretch to cover the political ambitions and ideology of the party in power with little or no concern for the realities faced in the mean streets of Middle Class, Blue Collar America.
Listen! I think that sound is the Founders rolling over in their graves.
All executive power is vested solely in the President. This is clearly stated in Article 2 section 1. The Vice President is only mentioned in the Executive article as pertains to his manner of election and means of impeachment if necessary. He is granted no executive power. His job description, found in Article 1, is President of the Senate, so I would argue that he is actually a part of the Legislative branch rather than the Executive. His manner of election is stated in the Executive article simply because his post was originally awarded to the candidate with the next highest count of electoral votes after the President (abrogated by the 12th amendment). As such, under the original terms of the Constitution, he would have been the only popularly elected member of the Senate.
The clause states “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
But a student of the Constitution might just reasonably conclude that the Constitution is at war with itself.
The Constitution struggles to reconcile the VP clause with another one that says:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Does the word all mean ALL? If the VP has a voice at any time, then the separation of powers is broken down. ALL does not mean ALL any more.
If the VP steps in at any time for any reason, then some of the power of the legislative has been usurped by the Executive, and the Congress no longer has ALL of the legislative power. When you have one party in control of all three branches of government, then the ideology becomes more important than the reality and the partisans mindlessly vote the party line. As a result we continue to spiral down the path that ideologies without any logistical structure usually take us.
Simply restated: One clause of the Constitution is at war with another clause. One clause grants ALL legislative powers and another one takes it away.
I have also read and understood the Federalist papers, all of them; some more than once, some many times.
The Federalist Papers are a collection of about 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They wrote these papers concurrent with the writing of the Constitution.
Within these writings, they describe the thought processes and the discussion among the Founders.
Some of the Founders were vehemently against giving the VP any vote at all as they saw this as a breach against the walls of separation of power.
But there is no disagreement among them as to when this VP tie breaking power should be used, if at all. The Founders, according to the Federalist Papers, were in total agreement that such tie breaking intervention should only be used once a bill has been introduced and fully debated and discussed by the whole Senate and a FINAL VOTE taken and there is a 50-50 tie
The VP tie breaking power was never intended to overcome a procedural vote, in this case, to open discussion on a bill that none, save a few agenda driven types, have any idea what it says.
With one party in power, the Constitution continues to stretch to cover the political ambitions and ideology of the party in power with little or no concern for the realities faced in the mean streets of Middle Class, Blue Collar America.
Listen! I think that sound is the Founders rolling over in their graves.
All executive power is vested solely in the President. This is clearly stated in Article 2 section 1. The Vice President is only mentioned in the Executive article as pertains to his manner of election and means of impeachment if necessary. He is granted no executive power. His job description, found in Article 1, is President of the Senate, so I would argue that he is actually a part of the Legislative branch rather than the Executive. His manner of election is stated in the Executive article simply because his post was originally awarded to the candidate with the next highest count of electoral votes after the President (abrogated by the 12th amendment). As such, under the original terms of the Constitution, he would have been the only popularly elected member of the Senate.
I'm of the opinion that the institution of the 17th amendment created way
more of a breach of the separation of powers in Congress than allowing the
President of the Senate to cast a deciding vote. This amendment pretty much
nullified the State's interests in Congress by removing their ability to
appoint their own representatives. Senators were never intended to have
constituents, and making them beholden to the popular vote moved their vested
interest from that of representing State's interests to that of pandering to
the public to retain office, a move that consolidated federal power by
lessening the influence of the individual States in Congress.
Just my two cents.
A fair argument and two cents well spent. I am in harmony with you on the 17th.
Electing a US Senator for 6 years effectively places that Senator out of reach of the electorate. If the Senators were appointed by state legislatures/governors, there would be an opportunity for recall every statewide election cycle.
The 17th effectively reduced accountability for at least 4 of the 6 years, considering the apparent short term memory of voters and other voter dynamics ( moving, dying, new voters).
While the President controls the Executive power, the VP is also elected to the Executive office. The VP is not elected as a Senator, a popular vote Senator or any kind of Senator. He is elected to the Executive Branch as VP and his duties assigned by the Constitution are limited to only voting on a Senate Bill if there is a tie. He has no Executive power as VP.
But because he has no Executive power, that does not make him a Senator. The constitution provides for two senators from each State and no others.
As you say, “All executive power is vested solely in the President”.
The “ALL” word should not have multiple uses or meanings.
So when the Constitution says
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”, the word “All” should have the same meaning when used in regards to the Executive.
All Senate bills, to pass must have a simple majority. With 50 states, that is 51-49. That point has never been in doubt
Procedural votes are determined by the Rules of the Senate. This time last year, there would have been no tie to break. It would have taken 60 votes to open debate.
With one party in control and hell bent on their agenda, they simply change the rules. Even then they could not manage a siple majority. A great case could be made that the ACA supporters in the Senate are in the majority.
A fair argument and two cents well spent. I am in harmony with you on the 17th.
Electing a US Senator for 6 years effectively places that Senator out of reach of the electorate. If the Senators were appointed by state legislatures/governors, there would be an opportunity for recall every statewide election cycle.
The 17th effectively reduced accountability for at least 4 of the 6 years, considering the apparent short term memory of voters and other voter dynamics ( moving, dying, new voters).
While the President controls the Executive power, the VP is also elected to the Executive office. The VP is not elected as a Senator, a popular vote Senator or any kind of Senator. He is elected to the Executive Branch as VP and his duties assigned by the Constitution are limited to only voting on a Senate Bill if there is a tie. He has no Executive power as VP.
But because he has no Executive power, that does not make him a Senator. The constitution provides for two senators from each State and no others.
As you say, “All executive power is vested solely in the President”.
The “ALL” word should not have multiple uses or meanings.
So when the Constitution says
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”, the word “All” should have the same meaning when used in regards to the Executive.
All Senate bills, to pass must have a simple majority. With 50 states, that is 51-49. That point has never been in doubt
Procedural votes are determined by the Rules of the Senate. This time last year, there would have been no tie to break. It would have taken 60 votes to open debate.
With one party in control and hell bent on their agenda, they simply change the rules. Even then they could not manage a siple majority. A great case could be made that the ACA supporters in the Senate are in the majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment