Trying to get away with not divulging secrets by stating he is not part of the Executive Branch is not only ridiculous, it's criminal. This is one more reason why the bush administration was more corrupt than the Clinton Administration.
2007-06-25 18:21:41 · 11 answers · asked by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Speaking up: Hon, go back and look at the Constitution. He is part of the Executive Branch...
2007-06-25 18:32:00 · update #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:
That is ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 mckensie, or whatever your name is...and by the way, it's funny you say what you said, but would be the same person who would accuse Clinton for everything under the sun, including blaming him for 9/11. So stop with the holier than thou attitude...
2007-06-25 18:47:16 · update #2
Ummm....it's been going on for many years, JOHN, so why can't Cheney do it. You guys kill me, since he is a republican, they can do whatever they want. Again, if this was the Clinton Administration, you would be having a fit.
2007-06-25 18:51:45 · update #3
S C: Hannity's blog being a good source? Right. Again, this shows me it is ok to be corrupt WHEN YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN...
2007-06-25 18:53:33 · update #4
Here's a little civics lesson for Speaking_Up: The Consitution of The United States of America
Article II, section 1 Paragragh A.
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,
Article I, Section 3 paragraph D:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have NO VOTE, unless they be equally divided. This means that he's nothig but a figure head, and not really part of the Senate, further Paragraph E states: The Senate shall chuse 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. It's the President Pro Tempore who is actually in charge of the Senate.
Bottom line is that Cheney is part of the Executive Branch, and not the Senate. Besides we all know that he's VP in name only, and in actuality he's co-President with Rove.
2007-06-25 19:06:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's true that the office's only Constitutionally-defined responsibility is the legislative role as President of the Senate. However, as a practical matter, the Vice President is generally assigned duties by the Chief Executive (the President), and takes part in the work of the administration, that is, the work of the Executive Branch. So it is difficult to make a case that the VP is not part of the Executive Branch, although it's possible that one could make a technical case for that position, relying on what the Constitution says (and doesn't say).
2016-05-20 22:31:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The vice president of the United States is actually the President of the U.S. Senate... which is part of the legislative branch.
Response:
Dude! I have read the Constitution (and recently re-read it and it does not state unequivocably that the VP is part ot the Executive Branch. It only states the President is and though it mentions the VP's term, it does not STATE that the VP is a part of that branch. You can argue that, but that is just that... an argument. And it not a new concept. The Legislative branch tells you his role in the Senate. So based on your weak argument, the same could apply to the reasons he can be considered a part of the Legislative branch. We can have a pissing contest all day about this, but you have no greater standing with your argument than anyone else who would argue the opposite.
But I must say this. This was the most provocative question last evening and judging from a lot of responses to your question, many people have no clue as to what the real issues are and and that is evident from their short brainless responses.
Take care... hon!!
2007-06-25 18:28:37 · answer #3 · answered by Speaking_Up 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
If you read the US Constitution, the Vice President is discussed under both the legislative and executive branch sections. Legislative outlines his only authority/power, executive describes the election process. The blog below provides an excellent overview of the executive/legislative discussion. In summary, the VP's salary and expenses for staff are paid out of the legislative budget versus the executive budget.
The blogger below has done an excellent job.
2007-06-25 18:50:18 · answer #4 · answered by S C 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Show me the law where it requires the executive branch to give up any documents to an archive. There is no law! Inspite of the arguments on this page I have listened to constiutional scholars point out that the VP is not part of the executive branch. The VP is a bench warmer with no power save what the president gives him (or her). The VP has no official duties in the constitution or responsibilities other than to stand by to suceed the president. So save your talk of corruption, impeachment, or a secret cabal. You sound silly.
2007-06-25 18:46:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Guilty until proved innocent? You're good at that. Always amazes me that people yell "Corruption" whenever the government doesn't give them what they want.
It's contemptible.
Then they accuse them of things that if you did it to a private citizen they could sue you. You wouldn't sue if someone called you corrupt in your business and criminal? You don't think a court would award you damages?
If he is, prove it in court instead of all this seditious nonsense. Oh, not the questions! Those are fine! They can even be patriotic if you really do put our country ahead of your own ideology, whether I agree with your goals or not!
But this one is simple. He has more than one position in government. If someone is a lawyer and a painter, and the court demands papers on someone whom he served as a lawyer and a painter, he might have cause to use lawyer/client privacy rights. If they can give due proof as to why he is required to give up the information that is protected under his position in the legislative branch, they have a right to the information. Otherwise, they are unjust in their pursuit.
He is part of the Executive Branch. He also holds a position in the Legislative Branch. Not hard to understand, but not necessarily reason not to give up the information. That's HIS to prove.
2007-06-25 18:32:54 · answer #6 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
they're just buying time to shred the documents and burn their harddrives.
If he isn't part of the executive branch, then this adminstration might want to do something right, for a change, and correct the website
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml
the CIA might want to correct their website as well:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Doesn't make me feel very secure if the CIA doesn't know that he is part of the legislative branch, as he claims.
2007-06-25 18:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Didn't you know that Dick is in the Vice Executive branch, and therefore is exempt from all Executive protocol.
2007-06-25 18:30:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
He has been receiving funds as part of the executive, so he should be included in the executive...
2007-06-25 18:30:44 · answer #9 · answered by ryuo 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I still can't figure that **** out. When will someone impeach these people. Why don't the democrats do what they talked about and get these ******* out of office?
2007-06-25 18:24:58 · answer #10 · answered by billy d 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋