Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Conservatives...VP and the executive branch
How did you feel about this question? Or about Cheney's interpretation of it?
I've always thought that McCain would be a huge improvement from Bush in the area of a transparent, ethical government. D1ck Cheney freaks me out and I really, really hate his whole "the VP isn't in the executive or legislative branch" approach to governance.
So, I was really surprised by Palin's answer last night that she wants an expanded VP role, and how she skirted the question (for the second time...a reporter asked the campaign which branch the VP was in, and they refused to answer).
My question is - do you agree with this philosophy? Do you think it's not in the exec branch? How does an expanded VP role square with your preference for a small, limited federal government?
Re: Conservatives...VP and the executive branch
This is a hard question, much harder than it looks IMO. The VP has been both legislative and/or executive at different points in our history. Certainly it started out as a legislative position. Now I think people view it as an executive position, or a little of both. Maybe that's due to the number of VPs who have had to ascend to the Presidency - it's viewed more as a President-in-training position. I don't know. But still, their only assigned job is to be President of the Senate. It doesn't matter to me if a VP presides over the legislature but sits in cabinet meetings and gains experience from the exec branch. It makes sense to include the VP just so if he/she needs to take over the transition would be smooth.
To me, the branch is not the controversial part. It's that the libs say Cheney has gotten out of oversight by saying the office serves two functions. I don't follow anything Cheney does so I can't speak to his particular circumstance. But I'll say this, just b/c the position can be both doesn't mean the obligations of both are cancelled out by each other. There must be checks and balances.
I actually caught snippets of this question. I may be wrong, but I think Palin was trying to allay fears that should John McCain die, she would have no clue what he was doing beforehand.
So she's saying she'd be in there, she would be doing stuff, she would have authority, while VP.
That said, checks and balances are wildly important, so no matter how big a role she has within the administration, the administration can't overreach. And I'm not sure where she stands on that.
What are you basing this assertion on? Not trying to be argumentative; your statement genuinely confuses me.
Cheney has said that the VP does not belong to either the exec or leg branch, but is rather a fourth branch. As such, he claims he does not have to comply with the records retention policies or disclosure policies that apply to the exec and leg branches.
This is what I have a huge problem with. I guess if they want to pick one or both, I'd be fine with whatever they chose. I think the constitution is vague on it. My own interpretation would put me in the "executive branch" category, though I guess I can see the other side. It's the "neither" or the refusal to answer that freaks me out, because it seems like it just not transparent. Do we really need an Amendment on this issue? Or a whole special set of laws passed to govern the VP only? I don't think so, which is why I'd like a definitive answer from the campaign.
(Now, forgive me, I need to go post this on E08 just because I want to see how gator bride handles this
)
I was under the impression Cheney thought it was part of both branches. I have not heard of this 4th branch philosophy until this thread. If that's what he said then I emphatically disagree. There is no historical precedent or constitutional allusion to a 4th branch. I imagine John Adams would agree with Cheney that it feels like its own branch, b/c it's so ill-defined and people tend to ignore it after an election, but it clearly isn't its own branch.
Loved the series but the book is way better. The movie skips time periods and condenses a lot. It's well done, but needed to be longer IMO.
He's never actually said he's in a fourth branch, just that his role is unique in that he's the only person who's half-leg and half-exec, so in that sense he is part of both but belongs to neither. It's a very weird scenario.
It just comes off as if he's using it as a sword and shield. He's not in the exec branch when it relates to record requests and disclosures, but in it when it pertains to executive privilege.
Here's a little blurb about it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/07/31/for-cheney-his-own-branch-of-government/
Anyway, the Adams book has been on my reading list for years. My husband read it, so we own it, but its in hard cover and I hate reading hard back books. I need to get a paper back copy, but the library versions are all hard back too. One day...
That's what I got out of it, too.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Palin didn't give any indication she thought the VP was outside the normal checks and balances. The question Ifill asked was, "Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?"
Ifill didn't say anything about Cheney shirking any oversight. So Palin's answer that the constitution is "flexible" on the branch issue is right on. The second part of her answer was about being cooperative with the President's agenda and about her own exec experience, which was directed at the people who think she isn't qualified. So she answered the question and then turned it into a reason to vote for her. I thought it was a good answer.
I thought Biden's answer was disastrous. Calling Cheney the "most dangerous VP in history" is demeaning, hyper-partisan and not presidential. It's fine to critique his polices, but to attack his character like that was a total turn-off. I'm sure the far left ate it up, but I don't think he scored points with most voters.