Article 1 (Legislative Branch) – Section 5 (Membership) states:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”

Article 2 (Executive Branch) – Section 4 (Disqualification) states:

“The President, Vice-President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Each of these sections describes the mechanisms by which members of the respective Branches can be removed from their Offices. I don’t believe the Senate can constitutionally vote to expel the VP as President of the Senate using the mechanism described in Article 1 – Section 5. To remove the VP as President of the Senate (by removing him from the office of VP) he would have to be removed
using Article 2 – Section 4. The fact that the VP can only be removed through the disqualification section listed under Article 2, the Executive Branch, clearly shows that the VP is part of the executive branch even though he has legislative duties.

The fact that the VP has legislative duties described under Article 1 but is part of the executive branch is not unusual. Everyone recognizes that the executive has pretty much sole control over foreign policy. However, international treaties must be approved by the Senate as described under Article 2. This does not suddenly make senators also part of the executive branch.

Couple this reasoning with the fact that the primary purpose of the VP is to act as a President in waiting should the President be incapcitated, the VP must meet all the same eligibility requirements as the President and that the VP is chosen through the same electoral process as the President and it is very clear that the VP is part of the executive branch even though he has some legislative duties.

The vice-Presidency is part of the Executive branch. That the VP can cast a vote in the Senate does not change that fact. End of story.

You could have read that opinion expressed in several of the posts in the thread but you, like so many Bush supporters, have a reading comprehension problem.

I would love to you see you leftist nutballs actually debate the question at hand. Am I really asking too much?

Clearly the Vice President is a member of the Senate. Like Cheney said, he is actually paid by the Senate. But the Vice President is not a Senator and can only cast tie-breaking votes. However when the Senate is split it is the President of the Senate (the Veep) who decides what becomes law. Clearly no one would argue that this is the role of the Executive Branch, would you?

And different Vice Presidents have differed on the role of the Vice President in the Senate. Adams, who was Washington’s VP, believed it was his job to control the Senate and he would spend lots of time preaching to the 26 Senators about what they should be doing. At times he even tried to stop debate. Most historians believe he overplayed his role which deminished the future role of Vice Presidents to come.

Come on you lockstep liberal wackos – try thinking for a change instead of paroting your irrational anger.

The office, contrary to what most people think, was not created to take over the Presidency should something happen to the President, it was created simply for election purposes (read Madison’s notes).

and one foot in the you know what…