Cheney asserts VP office has power to ignore President's Executive Order

There is no Constitutional limit on the number of terms a Vice President can serve. The 22nd Amendment, which discusses Presidential term limits, never mentions the Vice President. The only Constitutional restrictions are that, if the VP should serve more than two years as an Acting President, due to the President's death or inability to continue in office, the VP would only be eligible to be elected President for a single term. I guess, if John McCain wanted, he could have Cheney as his running mate in 2008.

Actually, the theory of the Constitution is that the Congress represents the people. In fact, the Constitution as written only required that the people would vote for the members of the House of Representatives. The legislatures of the states would appoint the Senators and also the Electors, who would then elect the President. It wasn't until 1917 that the Constitution was amended to have Senators elected by popular vote. There is still no Constitutional requirement that the President be elected by popular vote. Although George Washington, the first President, set a precedent by choosing not to run for a third term, there was no provision for term limits until 1951, as a reaction towards President Roosevelt's being elected for a fourth term in 1944.

Technically, there is no "most powerful" branch of the US government. Each branch has powers and limits to powers and is subject to checks and balances from each other branch. Congress was seen as the most important branch by the Framers, and therefore, it was addressed first in the Constitution. It alone was given the power to raise money and spend money, and only Congress could write laws, although they had no power to enforce or execute the laws. All bills to spend money have to originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate can add amendments. The Senate is also presided over by the Vice President (who is actually mentioned in the Constitution before the President.)

Fearful of the potential of tyranny, many of the Framers didn't want to have a single executive; a committee was suggested by some, while a leader chosen by the Congress was preferred by others. The final outcome was to have an executive who had specifically described powers. He was to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but he could not go to war without Congress declaring war. While he commands the forces, Congress pays them and has the power to create rules governing their behavior. The Executive gets to sign the laws written by Congress and he must enforce and execute the laws. If he doesn't approve of a law he can veto it; Congress must then revise it and re-submit it, or they may override his veto with a super-majority. The Executive can nominate Ambassadors and sign treaties, but the Senate must consent to the choices and ratify the treaties with a super-majority before they take effect.

The third branch, the Judiciary, consists of a Supreme Court mandated by the Constitution and whatever lesser courts Congress sees fit to establish. The President gets to nominate members of the judiciary, but all nominees must be confirmed by a super-majority of the Senate. Although not specified in the Constitution, an early ruling by the Supreme Court interpreted its role to include judicial review of Congressional laws; there is some controversy about this power, but it has stood for more than 200 years. The justices are appointed for life terms, and the Chief Justice gets to preside over impeachments of the President. Impeachment charges must be brought by the House, but the trial occurs before the Senate.

Okay, so much for the American civics lesson. It's twisted and purposely inefficient to prevent any one branch from taking on too much power. As usual, I went on too long, but I hope it makes some sense.

Thanks, Cary. I was saving Western civilization on another thread somewhere, so you beat me to it. :)

Top jedi: You are right: the abuse of Executive Orders is not a partisan issue. They are a dangerous power which the Executive has seized for himself, extra-Constitutionally. That said, a lot of EOs are actually necessary for the Executive Branch to operate. Since the President is the head of the Executive branch, he issues some of the EOs like memos directing different departments to focus on one issue, or increase staff on something else, or provide this material to that person... you get the picture. It's the ones which actually work as legislation which are stepping over the line. The document classification rules, for example, work as national laws since they regulate not only the Executive branch, but the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, state governments and individuals, too. These rules have never been written into law by Congress, yet they provide for penalties, they require funding, and they require staff. Those are not within the enumerated powers of the Executive Branch.

Still, if the other government branches have acquiesced so far in adhering to these EOs as if they were law, then why does the Vice President feel that he is not required to be subject to that law himself? That situation is even more ridiculous in that the President declares he has powers not specified in the Constitution which must be followed by all Americans, and the Vice President declares that he doesn't even have to follow those laws. What was that phrase again: "a nation of laws, not men?"

brgiant: Because Constitutional interpretation can be as flexible as Biblical interpretations, I can see someone making an argument that, since the Vice President's only duties spelled out in the body of the Constitution are to preside over the Senate, he is actually a part of the Legislative branch. I don't believe that is a proper interpretation, but Mr. Cheney has bigger lawyers than I do... not to mention a shotgun in the closet. :)

And, technically, Executive Orders shouldn't apply outside the Executive Branch, but as I pointed out above, some of the EOs have exceeded the boundaries of the Executive Branch and imposed rules with the force of law on other branches.

One correction, jmack: your explanation is basically on target, but the Electors were to be chosen by the State legislatures; Senators and Representatives were specifically prohibited from being Electors. The States were left to decide how to appoint the Electors, but the President wasn't expected to be chosen by popular vote.