Who knew- the VPs office is not in the executive branch of gov!!

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Thursday, June 21, 2007
Administration Oversight
Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information
The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”</p>

2

<p>Anyone who has ever read the United States Constitution. </p>

<p>A club I see you’ve never bothered to join.</p>

<p>636</p>

3

<p>636,</p>

<p>You’re kidding, right? Just in case you aren’t, check out this link:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html[/url]”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>(You’ll have to copy & paste. I can’t figure out how to turn on the html. Sorry-)</p>

<p>The Vice-President’s Office is clearly a part of the executive branch (article 2), even if he is President of the Senate (article 1). </p>

<p>You were just kidding?</p>

4

<p>VP only votes in the senate in case of a tie.</p>

<p>How can Cheney claim “executive privilege” in some cases and claim he’s not part of the “executive” in others?</p>

<p>The man really scares me.</p>

5

<p>It doesn’t matter anyway as the demos lack the set to stop the war or deal with the white house. Cheney figured that out along time ago. Just tell a demo to f himself and the world stops looking at what he’s doing and spends a week talking about swear words…</p>

<p>This administration has a free ride till 08. There aren’t enough strong politicans out there in either party to stop them. Of course after 08, they’ll beat their chests and tell us they showed em. </p>

<p>Here’s to Bush and Cheney they may be the worst presidential combo in history but do they care? What’s gonna happen? the demos are gonna tear up?</p>

6

<p>Opie nailed it.</p>

7

<p>The issue of the Vice President in Article II, Section 1 only deals with how he is chosen for office, while at the same time, says “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Not “President and Vice President.”</p>

<p>Whereas, Article I, Section 3 says “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate,…”</p>

<p>The powers of the office of the Vice President are contained within Article I (Legislative Branch) not Article II (Executive Branch).</p>

<p>I’m not saying what they did was right, as I have nearly no information on the matter. After reading the Constitution, however, this does not seem to be an issue, and appears merely to be another case of people trying to make a point be screaming “Haliburton,” and saying nothing else.</p>

<p>636</p>

8

<p>Perhaps this is an area where the Constitution is unclear? 'Cause in school we were taught the Prez & VP are part of the Executive branch. And when we vote in the presidential election, we don’t think we are electing a president and a “member of the Senate.” No way.</p>

<p>After all, this is the person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. Probably the only thing that has kept the truly wacko from going after the president physically.</p>

9

<p>636 said: I’m not saying what they did was right, as I have nearly no information on the matter. After reading the Constitution, however, this does not seem to be an issue, and appears merely to be another case of people trying to make a point be screaming “Haliburton,” and saying nothing else.</p>

<p>Clearly, you are a Cheney apologist. I for one am sick of the “Alice in Wonderland” speak that comes out of the Vice-President’s mouth. Up means down, down means up, and now, apparently, he no longer is a member of the executive branch. He’s a top advisor to the President, a member of his Cabinet, his budget falls under the Executive branch, his staff works in the Executive Office Building right next door to the White House, yet he’s not subject to the requirements imposed by the President. Puhleeez…</p>

10

<ol>
<li><p>This isn’t a case of people trying to scream Haliburton. Cheney has been fighting this battle for four years, and apparently tried to de-fund the office in the National Archives that was bugging him about it. </p></li>
<li><p>If the VP is primarily an officer of the Senate, I can’t wait for the Senate to pass some rules on document preservation and congressional access to the papers of the Senate’s officers. Not that Cheney is going to win on this issue, but if he did it could be a Pyrrhic victory.</p></li>
</ol>

11

<p>Cheney will be a good candidate to run for Singaporean President.</p>

12

<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285995,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285995,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“Congressman: Cheney challenges classified oversight - CNN.com”>Congressman: Cheney challenges classified oversight - CNN.com;

13

<p>Don’t blame this one on George Bush. He’s not even part of the same branch of government as Cheney.</p>

14

<p>And he certainly isn’t running the show…</p>

15

<p>Forget the individuals (as interesting as they are). This argument is really quite interesting from a Constitutional point of view. And I love Constitutional issues.</p>

<p>Looking at official government websites, they seem kind of split on where the Office of Vice President sits. On the one hand everyone just assumes that it is in the Executive Branch (even <a href=“http://whitehouse.gov%5B/url%5D”>http://whitehouse.gov</a> shows the OVP as a part of the Executive Branch), but clearly the ONLY job Consitutionally given to the VP is a Legislative one. Other websites are less clear about where the OVP lies.</p>

<p>The best question is one of funding: Is the OVP funded by the Executive Branch? Or by the Legislative Branch? Well, guess what? It is funded by both. Certain employees which are specifically related to Senate duties are funded by the Senate. All other employees are funded by the Executive Branch.</p>

<p>So the answer is clear: Surrender the information on the documents which are not related to Senate duties.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not about strength, it’s about numbers. Now that the DOJ has become so blatently politicized that applicants for career civil service jobs have their references called to make sure they’re really Republicans, the only way to deal with the corruption is to start by impeaching the Attorney General. Without an honest, independent Attorney General, you don’t have a mechanism to enforce supeonas, etc.</p>

<p>But the Attorney General cannot be convicted in an impeachment hearing because that would require about 16 Republicans to vote their conscience instead of their party line. The 11th commandment (thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican) trumps truth, justice, and the American way, for all but a handful or so of Republican Senators.</p>

<p>Even after Monica Goodling got immunity from prosecution for her crimes–and admitted them under oath–one Republican Senator insisted to her for the record and the audience: “there’s no evidence you did anything wrong.” </p>

<p>Can you imagine someone that blindly partisan and dishonest voting to restore the rule of law? Won’t happen.</p>

17

<p>Stop changing the subject. Political appointees can be fired for political appointees, hence the way they’re appointed.</p>

<p>As long as we’re questioning the Constitutionality of the actions of those elected under Article II, how does perjury not constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors?”</p>

<p>636</p>

18

<p>Hmmm - could this be the same "not an entity within the executive branch” which Cheney has argued is not within the purview of Congress’ investigative reach due to “executive privilege”?</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>What does this have to do with anything? I was talking about Monica Goodling’s admitted law breaking with regard to hiring career civil service staff. These are not political appointees, by any stretch of the imagination. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If this is meant to be a “b-b-but Clinton” [an odd digression for someone who demands that others not change the subject] might I remind you that Clinton was acquitted of perjury.</p>

20

<p>You’re right, I changed the subject, in every possible rhetorical sense of the phrase. I was hoping (unsuccessfully, apparently) that anyone who was bright enough (albeit a low standard) to recognize the reference would see my comment as such.</p>

<p>However to relate me to some stuttering moron shows a complete lack of respect for the very concept of discussion.</p>

<p>I ask you, when was he acquitted of rape?</p>

<p>636</p>