Balkinization: Doing without a vice president (an update)

Doing without a vice president (an update)

Sandy Levinson

In an earlier posting, I commented on the number of years we had in fact done without a vice president. The numbers are even more interesting than I thought. Consider the following years that there was indeed no VP ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice:

1812-1813 (death of George Clinton), 1814-1817 (death of Elbridge Gerry), Dec. 1832-March 1833 (resignation of John C. Calhoun) , 1841-1845 (death of President Harrison and succession by John Tyler), 1850-1853 (death of Zachary Taylor and succession by Millard Fillmore), 1853-1857 (death of VP William R. King), 1865-1869 (death of Abraham Lincoln and succession by Andrew Johnson), 1875-1877 (death of VP Henry Wilson), 1881-1885 (assassination of James A. Garfield and succession by Chester A. Arthur), 1885-1889 (death of VP Thomas Hendricks), 1897-1901 (death of VP Garrett Hobart), 1901-1905 (assassination of William McKinley and succession by TR Roosevelt), 1912-1913 (death of VP James Sherman), 1923-1925 (death of Warren G. Harding and succession by Calvin Coolidge), 1945-1949 (death of FDR and succession by Truman), 1963-1965 (assassination of JFK and succession by LBJ), Oct. 10, 1973–Dec. 6, 1973 (resignation of Spiro Agnew), and Aug. 9, 1974–Dec. 19, 1974 (ascension to presidency of Gerald Ford).

Given a choice, how many of you would prefer to have no vice president to having Dick Cheney as VP?

Posted 1:16 AM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Professor Levinson: Much as I share your distaste for the thugs currently in charge of our government, still, I wonder once in a while if you would beat this drum so loudly if you liked the sitting administration.

Given your solution, a new Constitutional Convention, I can see such producing nothing other than the best little Constitution that Haliburton and Bechtel could buy. I am without a doubt your partisan, but I am not yet fully persuaded to your conclusions.

Not that I'm without sympathy. The alternative to your call for a new Convention seems to be nothing less than the long, ugly and uncertain task of trying to educate the electorate such that the sophistries we've suffered under since the days of Reagan no longer suffice to win any office. That's not a task one takes up with optimism, but rather only with dogged determination and the belief that it is better than the alternatives.

Peace.

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:54 AM

Getting rid of an entrenched VP wouldn't require a constitutional convention, just an ordinary amendment.

No doubt I wouldn't be so upset if I esteemed the VP. But, recall, I concede that nothing can be done about Cheney, and my proposal to ditch the entrenched VP is made behind a "veil of ignorance," so it would apply, if I had my druthers, to whichever Democrat becomes VP in 2009. Althogh the level of my concern is generated by partisanship, the proposal is absolutely non-partisan.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 10:10 AM

Professor Levinson: Getting rid of an entrenched VP wouldn't require a constitutional convention, just an ordinary amendment.

Apologies, Sir, I missed that part of your earlier post. I would indeed vote for an amendment such as you suggest.

Of course you've argued strongly we need a convention to fix the amendment problem, but we'll leave that be.

Peace (and thanks, as always, for sharing so generously of your thoughts and time.)

# posted by

Robert Link : 10:22 AM

I would prefer having Dick Cheney as VP rather than no vice president at all. If he's so bad, why not impeach him?

# posted by

Charles : 12:22 PM

The important issue seems to me the availability of someone trustworthy to step into the role of President if something happens to the incumbent. Merely abolishing the office won't do; we need a line of succession that convinces people the country can continue to function. In particular, if the succession runs through the Sec'y of State, as I think it should, then the Senate has to take seriously it's advice and consent function for that office.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:11 PM

The argument that persuades me that a VP is unnecessary is that, in the modern era, it is no longer the case that an election will take years to organize, hence the value of a VP is much diminished.

A special election would be vastly preferable and could be organized in 6 months, complete with a primary, I suspect, especially nowadays when people start running the day after the previous election.

Would the country disintegrate in 6 months? Not that much, is my guess.

In general, it's a bad idea to retain offices that have no defined responsibility.

The VP office is the political equivalent of tonsils. Occasionally useful in primitive situations, but generally just a site for infections and corruption.

# posted by

C2H50H : 2:23 PM

I was thinking appendix, rather than tonsils. Although I have to ask: why have a special election for an office that, for all practical purposes, is responsible for nothing and (if Cheney is to be believed) accountable to no one?

I'd much rather see Mark Field's suggestion take place, where the Secretary of State is the second-in-line (although I'm not positive that was the extent of his suggestion, so forgive me if I've paraphrased it beyond recognition). The office would require the second-in-line to be both responsible and accountable for directing foreign policy, and would serve as a fine proving grounds for the Oval Office.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 3:00 PM

While I'm glad that pms likes my idea, I'm not sure it completely solves Prof. Levinson's concerns. Let's face it: if we take ourselves back to 2001 and try to imagine Dick Cheney being nominated as Sec'y of State, I think we'd have to conclude that the Senate (and it was a Dem Senate at that time) would have confirmed him.

Now, I say that partly because there's an ethos to confirmation hearings which defers to the President. That would have to change, as I noted above. Even if it did, I suspect that Cheney's formal qualifications would have sufficed. What the change might do, though, is eliminate thoroughly unqualified (in formal terms) candidates such as Agnew or Quayle.

We probably should add another nuance to the plan: require re-confirmation of the Sec'y of State if the President is re-elected. That would be fair -- it's the equivalent of another election. Cheney still would have survived, though, because by 2005 we had a Republican Senate which was willing to betray the country for partisan gain.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:26 PM

I guess I place my hopes in the idea that the State Dept provides a more conducive environment for understanding the issues of the world and the potential pitfalls of policy than the "bunker" model assumed by the current vice-presidency. The career-oriented portion of the department should provide structure/environment that can--to some degree--help to shape the person and their policy cues, rather than serve as an empty container to be filled with the ideology du jour.

Of course, the recent mess at the Department of Justice argues strongly against that point, if you put aside the potential role that threatened scandal-via-resignation may have played as a self-correcting measure.

As for re-confirmation, why stop at the Secretary of State? Why not hold a simple voice vote on each cabinet member, with formal confirmation proceedings necessary for any candidate the Senate was reluctant to re-confirm?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 6:10 PM

As for re-confirmation, why stop at the Secretary of State? Why not hold a simple voice vote on each cabinet member, with formal confirmation proceedings necessary for any candidate the Senate was reluctant to re-confirm?

That's not required now, of course; once appointed, cabinet officers serve until they quit or are fired. That raises an interesting point about how the Founders saw those offices. Some of them apparently expected the cabinet to function like, say, the British Privy Council, with the advisers relatively permanent. This may explain why Adams kept on Washington's cabinet, at least until he realized that they weren't loyal to him.

Whether such officials should have to undergo re-confirmation depends, in part, on how you see the offices. If they are the President's aides, there's no reason to replace them. If they serve as an advisory council intended to provide some check on the Executive, like the colonial councils, then it would make sense to require confirmation after each general election.

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:32 PM

By "fired" are you including impeachment of Cabinet officers?

# posted by

Charles : 8:06 PM

PMS_Chicago:

Sorry, I should have been more precise: the special election would be for President to replace the "acting president".

Actually, last I'd heard, medical science isn't convinced that the appendix is useless. The tonsils, though, they're pretty sure about.

The secretary of state would be a good choice.

# posted by

C2H50H : 10:19 PM

By "fired" are you including impeachment of Cabinet officers?

No, but of course that's another (theoretical) possibility.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:24 PM

Sorry, I should have been more precise: the special election would be for President to replace the "acting president".

My bad, I read it wrong. Thanks for the heads up about the appendix. :)

# posted by

PMS_CC : 11:30 AM

With out avice president, who then presides over the senate; casting the deciding vote when required?

# posted by

Unknown : 12:37 PM