Palin v the Constitution

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.



================================================

Article I, sect 3:

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

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.


Article II, sect 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,

Article II, sect 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States

=========================================================================

Analysis:

Great Antonin Scalia! The vice president is vested with executive power and is removable through Article II. Article I describes an executive duty of the vice president to be a check/balance by the executive branch over the legislative branch.

There is no "flexibility"

As for the intent of the founding fathers, it was to prevent exactly the sort of abuse of power that Cheney has posited and that Palin says she agrees with.

"the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Federalist paper #51

=====================================================================

While I am not a strict textualist (as seen by reaching for the Federalist papers), Cheney/Palin's position seems unconstitutional.

It worries me that the Constitution hasn't been an election issue either in the general election or the primaries. Biden takes a stab at it in his reply, but even fresh out of law school, I found his position to be nearly indecipherable.

Why don't the candidates trumpet that they revere the Constitution, the highest law of our nation, and the only thing that keeps us between the scylla and caribdis of tyranny and anarchy? When the discussion turns to values, the only ones which should matter in public life are "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." When the pundits argue over whether the candidates are qualified, the only qualification necessary is abiding by the oath to uphold the constituion.

Tonight's debate put into stark contrast the choice and the stakes, not just in this year's election, but in the years and months ahead. For the United States to be, the Constitution matters above all.