Should the V.P. of the United States be subject to a 2/3 majority vote in Congress instead of a fixed term?

Question

But why shouldn't 2008 be the last time we elect a fixed-term VP? Why shouldn't all candidates for president be asked to explain exactly why the country benefits from an impervious VP and whether they'd support a constitutional amendment to have the VP serve at the pleasure of the president or be subject to a no-confidence vote by 2/3 of the Congress assembled together? This might sound "academic," in the perjorative sense. But we're only a heartbeat away from a Cheney presidency. Think about it.

Most presidential systems get along without a constitutionally entrenched VP who cannot be removed because he loses the confidence of the president, the Congress, or the American people through demonstrated failures in judgment. But if we're stuck with a vice president, why in the world should he/she be impervious to a vote of no confidence by the Congress or, for that matter, dismissal by the president?

Would anyone designing a Constitution suitable for the 21st century maintain the vice presidential system exactly as it is, where a monarchical presidential nominee chooses, more or less arbitrarily, a running mater who may or may not be committed to the candidate's program or even fit to run the country?

Answer 1

No.
Because a 2/3 vote of Congress (Senate & House) could impeach and remove the President anytime they want.
And if the same 2/3 had the power to also appoint the VP they could subvert the democratic vote of "the people" by simply doing so and installing their favorite.
Its not such a great solution to the problem you rightly allude to.

Answer 2

The President is elected. The vice president is almost powerless unless there is a tie in the Senate. What is the problem with an elected president choosing his running mate.

Answer 3

Gerald Ford...never elected in a nationwide vote yet became President after becoming Vice President. If you want more of the same, try your system

Answer 4

particular, the President can veto any bill that comes in the process his table. If the President vetos the bill, yet another vote would be had to override the veto. some contributors of Congress, who had votes for the bill, could come to a decision to vote against the override (the controversy is authentic additionally, contributors who voted against the bill can vote for the override).

Answer 5

Why F-with a system that has been working for 200+ years.
Just because you support those that can't get elected doesn't mean the laws need changed it means your support was wrong and you backed losers and you need to change

Answer 6

So we're to get rid of a system that works rather well, simply because it's old? Your ideology frankly terrifies me.

Answer 7

No. Why complicate things? If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Answer 8

No.