Look it up. The Constitution says nothing about oversight of the Vice President. We all know, that as a strict Constructionist would see it, that if it's not in the Constitution, then the Founding Fathers would not have intended it to apply. Therefore, we should presume that Vice President Cheney's lawyer is right when he says Congress has no authority over the vice president.
Come to think of it, this is great, because it means that the Vice President can get away with basically anything, and it's all legit. Who wants to be President and be subject to checks and balances when you can be vice president and be a pompous ass?
I just don't understand where in anyone's mind they can seriously consider the hypothesis that the understudy to the most powerful office in the United States is not subject to oversight from the other co-equal branch of government.
So now, we have a vice president who can claim executive privilege, who's not part of the Executive Branch, and who is not subject to oversight. And the one we have is Dick Cheney, who selected himself to be Vice President after a thorough search of all possible VPs out there in 2000. Perhaps he was right, because who else could concoct such tommyrot?
I actually first read about this at Vim and Vinegar's outstanding blog a few days ago, but reading the news today, it caught my eye again. Read her post for a more in-depth analysis of this.
1 comment:
Thank you, Steve, for the link. Great line - "Who wants to be President and be subject to checks and balances when you can be vice president and be a pompous ass?"
He's unbelievable. Truly.
Post a Comment