Veep debate

Vice-Presidential debates are far from a main attraction, though this year seemed to to come with much more hype. Clearly Palin is the chief factor in drawing attention, and I imagine the ratings will be higher than the first Presidential debate of this cycle. All in all, no one screwed up so this will pretty much be forgotten by next week.

There is one thing I do take issue with, and that is Senator Biden's comments on the roll of the Vice President in regard to his role as "President of the Senate":

"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."

And now let us consider what the Constitution actually says:

"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. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

Clearly Senator Biden does not know the description of the job he is applying for. Senator Biden has somehow merged the Vice President's function as the presiding officer of the Senate exclusively with his ability to cast a tie breaking vote. But that is not what the Constitution says at all. If the Vice President is present in session, Constitutional law mandates that he is the presiding officer ex officio, and only in his absence may the Senate select another to fill that post. Now, if he is absent and a tie occurs... how is he to even know, and if he is not present he very well cannot cast a vote. Second, he is the presiding officer over all impeachments save that of the President.

But better yet, what was the perspective of the Framers? From the Senate's own website:

"Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers 'might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature.' Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote.'"