Is the Office of the Vice President part of the Executive Branch?

[RTFirefly]

Not exactly (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf), according to filings from that office:
The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).This was submitted by the OVP in lieu of a list of Executive appointees in that office that would normally have gone in something called the Plum Book, an annual roster of Executive appointees. Cheney's argument seems to be 'that doesn't apply to us; we're really not part of the Executive.'

The OVP is now making that argument over a more substantive issue: the requirement that Executive agencies provide statistics on document classification and declassification by their offices. Per U.S. News & World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070208/8cheney.htm?s_cid=rss:site1):
An important legal ruling is pending over Vice President Cheney's refusal to disclose statistics on document classification and declassification activity. The Information Security Oversight Office, which is responsible for the policy and oversight of the government's security classification system, has asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to direct Cheney's office to disclose these statistics.

Cheney's office provided the information until 2002 but then stopped doing so, J. William Leonard, the director of ISOO, told U.S. News. At issue is whether the office of the vice president is an executive branch entity when it comes to supporting the activities of the president and the vice president. The reporting requirements for disclosing classification and declassification activity fall under a presidential executive order.

"Basically the definition says that any entity of the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information is covered by the reporting requirements," says Leonard. "I have my understanding of what the executive order requires, and I'm going to the attorney general to ascertain if my reading of the executive order is correct."

However, Megan McGinn, Cheney's deputy press secretary, says the vice president's office is exempt.

"This matter has been thoroughly reviewed," McGinn told U.S. News, "and it has been determined that reporting requirements do not apply to the office of the vice president, which has both legislative and executive functions." Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate.
It's never really been an issue before now, due to the rather slight degree of power delegated by Presidents to their Veeps. But whether or not one thinks of the current Presidency as the "Cheney Administration," the fact is that Dick Cheney has been the most influential Veep in memory. Accordingly, the question of whether legislation applying to the Executive Branch generally applies to the OVP is of some importance.

A quick review of what the Constitution has to say about the Vice Presidency:

From Article I, Section 3:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
From Article II, Section 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Article II, Section 4:
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.
The 12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
20th Amendment, Section 1:
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...
20th Amendment, Section 3:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
25th Amendment:
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

The weird thing is, I think Cheney actually has a half-decent argument here. The Vice-President clearly does have legislative as well as executive functions. The fact that the Veep is first in the line of succession doesn't specifically place him in the Executive Branch; the Speaker of the House is next, and nobody considers the Speaker to be part of the Executive. The main things going for the Veep being specifically part of the Executive Branch are (a) the fact that the President and Veep are elected by the same unique mechanism; (b) the fact that the Veep, like the President and other Executive officers, can be impeached; and (c) long custom, notably the fact that the Veep is chosen by the President and has no real powers of his own.

But the one specific power of the Veep is the ability to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, which is a legislative power.

So, what is the Veep, really? Part of the Executive Branch? Part of the Legislative Branch? One foot in both worlds? A fourth, undefined branch of its own?

Have at it. I sure can't tell.

[Jonathan Chance]

Jesus, given that reasoning neither can I. The best argument I can find against it is that there are only three branches of government and the Office of the Vice President has to fit into ONE of them somehow. I don't think it can be defined as some 'ill-defined fourth branch'.

Easiest would be an act of Congress placing reporting requirements for the OVP into the Executive Branch category. But I betcha that would face constitutional review.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So, what is the Veep, really?
Depends on our definition of "is," I suppose.

[Monty]

This federal web site (http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml) has the Veep in the Executive Department. Further, Article II of the United States Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/) deals with the Executive Department.

[Captain Carrot]

The thing is, everything has to be in one branch: anything else would violate the separation of powers. The VP's role as President of the Senate rarely matters that much, especially since there haven't been very many tie-breaking votes necessary. In addition, that's the only legislative power he has; Cheney, like Bush, cannot propose any legislation. They can both ask individual members of Congress to propose it for them, but they can't actually do it themselves. I suppose you could view the VP's tie-breaking role in the Senate as a much weaker form of the President's veto powers, so that could simply be an analogous executive responsibility.

[Monty]

I'd venture that prior to any vote where the majority party thought it would come to a tie breaker, said majority party would already be fairly certain of the veep's inclinations and would do their utmost to ensure it wouldn't come down to his vote.

[John Mace]

I'd venture that prior to any vote where the majority party thought it would come to a tie breaker, said majority party would already be fairly certain of the veep's inclinations and would do their utmost to ensure it wouldn't come down to his vote.
Not necessarily, and that wouldn't matter anyway. He still gets a vote.

Although the OP's thesis looks obviously correct on the face of it, I can't see all the pieces of the puzzle. The first cite (which is a PDF, btw) is the appendix of some document. What document is it, and what is the context of those statements? The second cite seems unrelated to the first*, and seems to be talking about an executive order, not an act of Congress. If it's an executive order, then I think Mr. Leonard is correct when he says:

If the attorney general determines that Cheney's interpretation of the executive order is right, Leonard says it would be the final answer. "That's it for me," says Leonard.

So, I'm withholding judgement until I see how this all fits together, even though Cheney's claims seem spurious at best.

*if it is related, it's unlcear to me how so.

[BrainGlutton]

I'm tempted to blame the Framers for having a brainfart -- but who ever could have imagined it would come to this? Not even the Nixon Admin was this obsessed with secrecy nor this resistant to accountability!

[Captain Amazing]

I'm tempted to blame the Framers for having a brainfart -- but who ever could have imagined it would come to this?

Well, I don't think the Framers ever expected the Vice President to have a staf, or produce documents, or anything like that. He was just the loser of the last election, who hung out at the Senate while he waited for the President to die.

[David Simmons]

Well, I don't think the Framers ever expected the Vice President to have a staf, or produce documents, or anything like that. He was just the loser of the last election, who hung out at the Senate while he waited for the President to die.Right. Actually, the Vice-President was the one who received the second highest total of electoral votes. It seems to me that the language of the Constitution is clear that the framers anticipated a number of candidates for President and not just two major ones.

After the mess in the election in which Thomas Jefferson and AAron Burr received equal numbers of electoral votes The House of Representatives named Jefferson making Burr the Vice-President. There was a lot of mutual dislike between the two and it was realised that the system had to be changed. It was changed by the XII Amendment which calls for the separate election of President and Vice-President..

The office of Vice-President has changed considerably since Roosevelt's VP, John Nance Garner, (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/presidents_and_first_ladies/35366/2) said that it wasn't worth "a bucket of warm spit." There is some doubt that "spit" was an exact quote, but that's the way it appeared in the press.Each year on his birthday, Garner held a press conference and repeated his well-known opinion about the vice-presidency, which he called the "unnecessary office." Garner once told Lyndon Johnson that the vice-presidency "wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit," because "the Vice President is just a waiting boy, waiting just in case something happens to the President." Actually, he said something less polite, but the press cleaned it up before quoting him.

[ElvisL1ves]

I'm tempted to blame the Framers for having a brainfart -- but who ever could have imagined it would come to this? The Vice-President has no more executive power than the President allows him to have. Anything Deadeye Dick has done is because the Boy in the Bubble has let him do it. Focus your blame on the right target first.

Yes, it's hard to see the Framers imagining the President derelicting his duties so completely. But then again, we've had other past bouts of disengaged or incapacitated Presidents having actual power taken to some large extent by senior White House staffers - the fact that this time it's the VP doing it reflects only the modern trend of the President actually giving him some important stuff to do.

[RTFirefly]

Captain Carrot, I hope you don't mind my using your post as a starting point for further discussion. I chose your post mostly because of its completeness; it provided a good springboard to work from for a general response to what's been said so far here. The only thing you said that I took more than mild exception to was your analogy between the Veep's tie-breaking vote and the President's veto power.
The thing is, everything has to be in one branch: anything else would violate the separation of powers. Separation of powers is a doctrine that is implicit in the Constitution, but it depends on the Constitution, not the other way around. And even the notion (per JC's post) that there are exactly three branches of government, and everything is in just one, is an implication that we draw from the way the Constitution is organized.

I personally think the Constitution's structure itself argues for that proposition. I wonder whether the Supremes would agree? Or would they give that little weight, and rely strictly on the Constitutional wording?

The VP's role as President of the Senate rarely matters that much, especially since there haven't been very many tie-breaking votes necessary. In addition, that's the only legislative power he has; Cheney, like Bush, cannot propose any legislation. When the GOP was contemplating ending judicial filibusters in the Senate, part of the plan was to seek a ruling from the chair that judicial filibusters were impermissible, and a simple majority would suffice to end debate. The Veep would have been expected to preside and give that ruling, since such a ruling coming from any lesser holder of the gavel would have been suspect.

So there can be more to the Veep's role in the Senate than tie-breaking. But I would agree that such instances are rare. I can't remember another situation where it seemed as if the Veep was going to substantively intervene in the Senate's processes in ways other than tie-breaking.

I suppose you could view the VP's tie-breaking role in the Senate as a much weaker form of the President's veto powers, so that could simply be an analogous executive responsibility.I think that's a bit of a stretch. The veep can turn a tie into a majority vote for the bill, which doesn't resemble a veto at all.

[Captain Carrot]

And even the notion (per JC's post) that there are exactly three branches of government, and everything is in just one, is an implication that we draw from the way the Constitution is organized.
And one that we draw from the voluminous writings of the Founding Fatherstm. Exhibit A: the separation of Church and State, which phrase is found neither in the Constitution nor in the Declaration of Independence, but is one of Thomas Jefferson's cherished principles.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. The veep can turn a tie into a majority vote for the bill, which doesn't resemble a veto at all.
That part doesn't, no, but the rest kinda does. The vice president can turn a tie in favor of the executive branch, but can do nothing otherwise. The president can veto if the balance is close, but it will have no effect otherwise. Anyway, it was mostly an afterthought.
In any case, both abilities are ways for the executive to exercise direct influence over the lawmaking process before the absolute end.

[Billdo]

The Vice-President has no more executive power than the President allows him to have. Anything Deadeye Dick has done is because the Boy in the Bubble has let him do it. Focus your blame on the right target first. . . . - the fact that this time it's the VP doing it reflects only the modern trend of the President actually giving him some important stuff to do.

I think this the key to solving this riddle.

Yes, the VP has some legislative function, but he also acts as a minister-without-portfolio within the administration. The Presdent delegates certain adminstrative functions to the VP just as he might to a cabinet officer or another body or commission. To the extent that the VP acts in connection with this delegated responsibility, it should be considered executive functioning.

[Elendil's Heir]

Of course the VP is part of the Executive Branch. Cheney will argue otherwise right up to the moment that the branch of which he now claims to be a part - the Democratically-controlled Congress - actually attemps to make him do something he doesn't want to.

The Framers didn't give the VP much thought, compared to the method of chosing the President, what powers to give Congress, etc. The position is somewhat ambiguous, I'll grant you. Under the Constitution, the VP may have a toe or two in the Legislative Branch, with his power to break ties in the Senate (for an interesting list thereof, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Vice_Presidents%27_tie-breaking_votes, but otherwise both of his feet are completely in the Executive Branch. His method of selection and of taking office, his position as designated successor to the President, his impeachability, etc., all indicate that he is an Exec Branch officer.

Historically, I'll concede that there is some support for Cheney's position. According to Wiki, VPs didn't attend Cabinet meetings from 1791 through 1918, and no VP had an actual White House or West Wing office until Carter gave Mondale one. Nowadays, though, due to his statutory role on the NSC and the now-customary (and sure to be remarked upon and criticized, if any President ever stopped it) inclusion of the VP in briefings, Cabinet meetings, and virtually all Executive Branch matters, the VP is surely part of that branch.

I'm not surprised that this White House would make such an argument, though. The fact that it just happens to support this VP's natural secretiveness is wholly coincidental, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

[DanBlather]

I don't think this administration is going to be satisfied til it creates a full-blown constitutional crisis.

[RTFirefly]

The Presdent delegates certain adminstrative functions to the VP just as he might to a cabinet officer or another body or commission. To the extent that the VP acts in connection with this delegated responsibility, it should be considered executive functioning.Makes sense to me.

[jackdavinci]

"Basically the definition says that any entity of the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information is covered by the reporting requirements," says Leonard. "I have my understanding of what the executive order requires, and I'm going to the attorney general to ascertain if my reading of the executive order is correct."

Well, come on, obviously this violates the *intent* of the requirements - whether or not there is some linguistic technical loophole or not. And is Cheney doing this for any reason *other* than the technicality? If he's not doing it on the basis of any actual principle, then why not just perform the request? Surely this isn't the first legal document to have ever used the term "Executive branch" - wouldn't this term have already had a legal definition hashed out long ago? And why does the requirement limit itself to the Exectutive branch? If the reporting requirements are needed, why aren't they universal for anyone at all that comes into posession of classified information? Is the executive branch specifically excluded from these sorts of requirements, and if so, why?

[BrainGlutton]

As has been pointed out in other threads: If Cheney is actually a member of Congress, he has no executive privilege. He also can be expelled from office by a simple majority vote of the Senate without any impeachment process. :D

[elucidator]

From Daily Kos: (warning: lefty site, tighty righty advisory: Shields Up)

http://www.dailykos.com/

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation – the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."
Emphasis gleefully added...

[gonzomax]

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/government/national/executive.html He is in the executive. He is weaseling.

[Alan Smithee]

Here's what I don't get--this is all over the interpretation of an Executive Order, right? An Executive Order, as understand it, is simply a Presidential fiat. It may have been issued by a previous president, but the current president can surely clarify the mater, by issuing a new Order, if necessary. In fact, it seems that it would be his duty to do so, as head of the Executive Branch. Why should the AG be involved at all (except in an advisory capacity)?

[Mr. Moto]

I don't think Cheney has leg one to stand on here.

Certainly there are some constitutional responsibilities that properly belong to the Vice-President, and him alone. But to the extent that he is included in functions of the Executive Branch such as even being provided access to classified material, he has to play by Executive Branch rules.

Furthermore, the further he pushes this, the less support he will have. I don't see a tremendous swell of support for this novel theory among most conservative commentators.

This ought to be hauled off and left to die.

[Galena]

So, the President isn't supposed to be "affected" by the EO either? (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney23jun23,1,2991960.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true)

From the LA Times article:
An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

I mean, really? Am I just missing something here?


LilShieste

[pool]

Bush apparently meant to exempt himself but forgot (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003759424_cheney23.html) :smack:

[LilShieste]

<sigh> Sorry (again) - that was me, not Galena.

Anyway, I forgot to comment on this part:

From the LA Times article:
"We don't dispute that the ISOO has a different opinion. But let's be very clear: This executive order was issued by the president, and he knows what his intentions were," Fratto said. "He is in compliance with his executive order."
Well, as long as he knows what he was talking about; that's what counts. Does he realize that he doesn't actually live inside of a bubble?


LilShieste

[BrainGlutton]

Does he realize that he doesn't actually live inside of a bubble?

Well, in a sense he does live inside a bubble . . .

[Agnostic Pagan]

I would make the argument that if the Office is part of both branches, then it should be subject to the rules of both branches, not exempt from them. When the VP acts in an executive role (which I believe he is in this matter), he is subject to Executive branch policies such as the EO. And when he acts in a legislative role (which I believe only occurs when he physically presides over the Senate and has to cast a tie-breaker) then he is subject to Legislative branch policies.

Basically, I think on a day-to-day basis he is part of the Executive branch exempt when he is actually performing his constitutional roles in the Senate. He doesnt get to decide to 'bill' this hour to the White House, and that hour to the Congress, based on whatever is convenient for him at the moment.

Can we please impeach these guys already? While they at least still acknowledge the Constitution? And when we do, can we stick them in Guantanomo while they await trial? Pretty please!

[RTFirefly]

In this morning's WaPo, Barton Gellman has the first installment of a four-part series about Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062300890.html?hpid=topnews) and how he wielded power in this Administration.

[RTFirefly]

If you're interested in Cheney's role in the Administration, you'll really want to read the story at the above link. It's quite a description of how Cheney and his proxies, particularly David Addington, managed to act in a bunch of different places and roles within the Executive Branch, making decisions, blocking other decisions, without ever leaving their names on a piece of paper anywhere.

For instance, here's John Yoo, nominally then-AG Ashcroft's subordinate, effectively working for Addington:
To pave the way for the military commissions, Yoo wrote an opinion on Nov. 6, 2001, declaring that Bush did not need approval from Congress or federal courts. Yoo said in an interview that he saw no need to inform the State Department, which hosts the archives of the Geneva Conventions and the government's leading experts on the law of war. "The issue we dealt with was: Can the president do it constitutionally?" Yoo said. "State -- they wouldn't have views on that."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, was astonished to learn that the draft gave the Justice Department no role in choosing which alleged terrorists would be tried in military commissions. Over Veterans Day weekend, on Nov. 10, he took his objections to the White House.

The attorney general found Cheney, not Bush, at the broad conference table in the Roosevelt Room. According to participants, Ashcroft said that he was the president's senior law enforcement officer, supervised the FBI and oversaw terrorism prosecutions nationwide. The Justice Department, he said, had to have a voice in the tribunal process. He was enraged to discover that Yoo, his subordinate, had recommended otherwise -- as part of a strategy to deny jurisdiction to U.S. courts.

Raising his voice, participants said, Ashcroft talked over Addington and brushed aside interjections from Cheney. "The thing I remember about it is how rude, there's no other word for it, the attorney general was to the vice president," said one of those in the room. Asked recently about the confrontation, Ashcroft replied curtly: "I'm just not prepared to comment on that."Hell, I'd have been rude too.

Addington acting through Gonzales:
Powell asked for a meeting with Bush. The same day, Jan. 25, 2002, Cheney's office struck a preemptive blow. It appeared to come from Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant whom the president nicknamed "Fredo." Hours after Powell made his request, Gonzales signed his name to a memo that anticipated and undermined the State Department's talking points. The true author has long been a subject of speculation, for reasons including its unorthodox format and a subtly mocking tone that is not a Gonzales hallmark.

A White House lawyer with direct knowledge said Cheney's lawyer, Addington, wrote the memo. Flanigan passed it to Gonzales, and Gonzales sent it as "my judgment" to Bush [Read the memo]. If Bush consulted Cheney after that, the vice president became a sounding board for advice he originated himself.

Addington, under Gonzales's name, appealed to the president by quoting Bush's own declaration that "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war." Addington described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," casting Powell as a defender of "obsolete" rules devised for another time. If Bush followed Powell's lead, Addington suggested, U.S. forces would be obliged to provide athletic gear and commissary privileges to captured terrorists.

Cheney cutting himself in on other Administration players' communications:
At the White House, Bellinger sent Rice a blunt -- and, he thought, private -- legal warning. The Cheney-Rumsfeld position would place the president indisputably in breach of international law and would undermine cooperation from allied governments. Faxes had been pouring in at the State Department since the order for military commissions was signed, with even British authorities warning that they could not hand over suspects if the U.S. government withdrew from accepted legal norms.

One lawyer in his office said that Bellinger was chagrined to learn, indirectly, that Cheney had read the confidential memo and "was concerned" about his advice. Thus Bellinger discovered an unannounced standing order: Documents prepared for the national security adviser, another White House official said, were "routed outside the formal process" to Cheney, too. The reverse did not apply.
I've left out stuff that's as good as what I've quoted. Josh Marshall's also had excerpts up today. Go read.

[MovieMogul]

Andrew Sullivan comments (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/a-law-unto-hims.html#more):This, we now know, is how the U.S. came to endorse the torture of military and CIA detainees. It was done by stealth, with none of the customary legal and constitutional safeguards. It was done by vice-president Dick Cheney in what may by historians be regarded as an internal coup - against the country, and against the law:Three days after the Ashcroft meeting, Cheney brought the order for military commissions to Bush. No one told Bellinger, Rice or Powell, who continued to think that Prosper's working group was at the helm.

After leaving Bush's private dining room, the vice president took no chances on a last-minute objection. He sent the order on a swift path to execution that left no sign of his role. After Addington and Flanigan, the text passed to Berenson, the associate White House counsel. Cheney's link to the document broke there: Berenson was not told of its provenance.

Berenson rushed the order to deputy staff secretary Stuart W. Bowen Jr., bearing instructions to prepare it for signature immediately - without advance distribution to the president's top advisers. Bowen objected, he told colleagues later, saying he had handled thousands of presidential documents without ever bypassing strict procedures of coordination and review. He relented, one White House official said, only after "rapid, urgent persuasion" that Bush was standing by to sign and that the order was too sensitive to delay.And so the US effectively withdrew from the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants would never have been granted full POW Geneva status, but they would have been assured minimal Article 3 protection, which would have safeguarded them from the torture Cheney was clearly determined to conduct. As it happened, of course, the torture did not only occur at Gitmo, and it did not only occur to those detained in Afghanistan. It spread throughout the theater of war, in Iraq and beyond - in part because torture, once approved, always spreads, and in part because of the anonymous and unaccountable way in which it was initiated.

No vice-president has the right to do this, to change the basic morality of the United States, to undermine its laws, withdraw from its treaty obligations, and do so without even consulting other individuals within the executive branch, let alone the Congress.

And yet Cheney, in a vice-presidential power-grab unparalleled in U.S. history, didn't only do it; he did it in such a way as to deny his own accountability and responsibility.Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security."The phrase "law unto himself" comes to mind.

[MovieMogul]

Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/25/cheney/index.html) has a nice little Top 10 synopsis as well:1. The vice president's "understanding" with the boss. Just after Cheney took office, former Vice President Dan Quayle warned him about the ceremonial nature of the job. Cheney smirked and told Quayle: "I have a different understanding with the president." Quayle says Cheney saw himself as what Quayle calls a "surrogate chief of staff." Bush's actual chief of staff, Josh Bolten, says Cheney's deal with Bush guarantees him a seat at "every table and every meeting" and the right to make his voice heard in "whatever area the vice president feels he wants to be active in."

[Acsenray]

While Cheney's argument posts a genuine, interesting question, his conclusion is entirely disingenuous. Yes, perhaps it is interesting that the vice presidency has elements of the executive and the legislative branch, so you might legitimately argue that it is an executive position or a legislative position or both, but there is nothing in the constitution that justifies concluding that it is neither.

[Bricker]

Can't have his cake and eat it too, as the confusing proverb goes.

Cheney is happy to claim executive privilege when it suits him and happy to accept funding out of the executive pool of funds. He should not use this flimsy argument to duck away from the executive branch whenever it pleases him and return whenever the water temperature is more to his liking. I agree with the commentary from Rahm Emanuel when he says, "At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent."

[BobLibDem]

For perhaps the first time, I'm in 100% agreement with bricker .

If Cheney wants to be part of the Legislative Branch, I'm all for it as long as that means Nancy Pelosi gets unfettered access to his files.

[BrainGlutton]

Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/25/cheney/index.html) has a nice little Top 10 synopsis as well:

Regarding No. 3, "Secrecy," here's (http://wonkette.com/politics/dick-cheney/shreddin-with-dick-211028.php) a pic of a document-shredding company's truck parked outside Cheney's house.

[BrainGlutton]

If Cheney wants to be part of the Legislative Branch, I'm all for it as long as that means Nancy Pelosi gets unfettered access to his files.

Does she get unfettered access to any Congresscritter's files?

[BrainGlutton]

Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/25/cheney/index.html) has a nice little Top 10 synopsis as well:

10. Guantánamo. Last week's talk of a high-level meeting and an impending decision to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba? The Post says Cheney is actually in favor of expanding the facility. He's almost alone in that view, the Post says, but he has succeeded so far in keeping Gitmo open.

He might well be worried about what would come out (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=426141) if all the detainees were released or got a court date.

[BobLibDem]

Does she get unfettered access to any Congresscritter's files?

Well no but it is a happy thought.

[Gangster Octopus]

It is called the Vice President. I know that is simplistic, but I think it is telling. Since "vice" means "in place of" it seems to me that the Vice President would be seen as an executive meant to serve in stead of the President, under certain conditions.

[BrainGlutton]

It is called the Vice President. I know that is simplistic, but I think it is telling. Since "vice" means "in place of" it seems to me that the Vice President would be seen as an executive meant to serve in stead of the President, under certain conditions.

Well, the VP can serve as acting president when the president is incapacitated -- that's provided in the 25th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_three:_Voluntary_withdrawal) -- but otherwise, there is no constitutional provision for the VP serving in the president's stead. His powers are very limited.

[RTFirefly]

Well, the VP can serve as acting president when the president is incapacitated -- that's provided in the 25th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_three:_Voluntary_withdrawal) -- but otherwise, there is no constitutional provision for the VP serving in the president's stead. His powers are very limited.The VP's specific powers enumerated in the Constitution are very limited. But Bush has delegated to him a considerable amount of power. All that power is Executive power, and doesn't rest at all on his role as President of the Senate. It's hard to see how anything pertaining to Cheney's exercise of that power wouldn't be subject to laws and Executive orders covering the entire Executive Branch.

Bush could have just as easily picked another Veep, and made Cheney his chief of staff, to the same effect. The only difference, really, is that the Veep can't be fired by the President in mid-term, only impeached by Congress.

[elucidator]

Mustn't forget that tie-breaking vote in the Senate, which usually doesn't mean much, but in interesting times, such as these....

[kaylasdad99]

Bush could have just as easily picked another Veep, and made Cheney his chief of staff, to the same effect. The only difference, really, is that the Veep can't be fired by the President in mid-term, only impeached by Congress.If only. Has there ever been a credible rundown of who had been short-listed for the VP spot before Cheney decided he was the best man for the job?

[Frank]

Obviously, the solution is for Congress to pass a metric boatload of laws that begin with, "The Constitutional Office of the Vice-President of the United States is subject to..."

[BrainGlutton]

In this morning's WaPo, Barton Gellman has the first installment of a four-part series about Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062300890.html?hpid=topnews) and how he wielded power in this Administration.

Part two: "Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power". (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/)

Part three: "A Strong Push from Backstage". (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/a_strong_push_from_back_stage/index.html)

The concluding installment, tomorrow, will be about Cheney's influence on the Admin's environmental policies. (Regarding which, see this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=426052) thread.)

[Liberal]

In a clip from July 25, 2001 played on the Daily Show, Cheney said:

This request, that in fact we were supposed to provide him with this information with respect to those meetings in the executive branch between the Vice-President and other individuals strikes me as inappropriate.It seems to me that at that time, being in the executive branch suited him just fine.

[elucidator]

Well, sure, at that time he was part of the executive! But the VP's Office is flexible to a marvelous extent, which displays, once again, the genius of the Founding Fathers in creating a highly malleable branch of governance, once that can adapt instantly to conditions as they arise.

For example, when Cheney had the misfortune to shoot a lawyer out of season, he determined, on the spot, that he was not subject to the vexations of the Texas Highway Patrol. In this instance, he adopted his capacity in the judicial branch (dunno, maybe he keeps a set of robes and a gavel in his luggage...). In his judicial capacity, he made the determination that was needful under the circumstances.

[MovieMogul]

Some priceless excerpts (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070625-5.html) from yesterday's White House press briefing:Q Okay. And just lastly, it's a little surreal -- I mean, how is it possible --

MS. PERINO: You're telling me.

Q Well -- that you can't give an opinion about whether the Vice President is part of the executive branch or not?

MS. PERINO: All I know is that --

Q It's a little bit like somebody saying, "I don't know if this is my wife or not." (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.

Q No, but honestly, I mean, there's no --

MS. PERINO: No, honestly, I think it's more complicated than that. I do.

------------------------

Q Dana, for 200-plus years, everybody from civics class on up has had a certain understanding of the way our government works. And this EO clarifies more than 200 years of constitutional scholarship about the way our system works?

MS. PERINO: Maybe it's me, but I think that everyone is making this a little bit more complicated than it needs to be. The President writes an executive order; he says --

Q I'm talking about the part where the Vice President says that there's a question about whether or not he's part of the executive branch.

MS. PERINO: And the point I was trying to make to you before is that I --

Q This really falls into "sky is blue" stuff.

--------------------------------

Q But how is being a part of another branch -- I guess it's debatable -- but how is that an out?

MS. PERINO: It's not an -- that's irrelevant because the President never intended for the Vice President to be subject to the executive order.

Q No, he introduced the topic. The Office of the Vice President introduces that into the argument, into the debate; "well, we're not part of the executive branch."

MS. PERINO: I think that that is also a fact -- and as I said to Kelly, I'll see if I can get more from the Vice President's office to see if they -- how they connected the two, or if they did.

Q He can argue he's part of both, but he can't possibly argue that he's part of neither. And it seems like he's saying he's part of neither.

MS. PERINO: Okay, you have me thoroughly confused, as well.

Q He doesn't know his wife -- (Laughter.)

[RTFirefly]

In a clip from July 25, 2001 played on the Daily Show, Cheney said:

It seems to me that at that time, being in the executive branch suited him just fine.Maybe it's time for a new request to see the energy task force minutes, now that Cheney's made it clear that he regards as moot the original legal justification for keeping them secret. :)

[BobLibDem]

Truth is, Cheney could not possibly care less about the whole mess. He knows that the Congress has neither the will nor the time nor the votes to impeach and convict him, so he's going to thumb his nose at everybody and run the clock out. Perhaps as a result of this we'll go back to the Agnew type veep (totally uninvolved) as opposed to the Cheney type.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

In a clip from July 25, 2001 played on the Daily Show, Cheney said:

It seems to me that at that time, being in the executive branch suited him just fine.
I was wondering about that. Does this mean we can finally get access to those records, since Cheney is no longer claiming executive privilege?

Daniel

[elucidator]

See any pig flop dropping from the sky?

[MaxTheVool]

Stephen Colbert's take on this was brilliant... he was talking about checks and balances, and how the three branches of government are like rock, paper and scissors. So then he gets one of his staffers over, and says "want to play a game of Rock Paper Scissors Cheney"?

So they go "one two three...", and the staffer holds out scissors, and Stephen puts his hand under his desk (where we can't see it), and says "OK, I beat you". And the staffer says "what do you have?", and Stephen says "I can't tell you".

[David Simmons]

Deleted as a duplicate.

[David Simmons]

Maybe it's time for a new request to see the energy task force minutes, now that Cheney's made it clear that he regards as moot the original legal justification for keeping them secret. :)Won't work. There is a Supreme Court decision that says he doesn't have to.

I'll say again that the constitution has been shown to contain a few weaknesses. They are a result of the framers assumption that those elected to run the country would have at least a dash of honesty.

Their optimism seems to have been unjustified..

[BobLibDem]

I'll say again that the constitution has been shown to contain a few weaknesses. They are a result of the framers assumption that those elected to run the country would have at least a dash of honesty.

I don't know. It took over 200 years before we got this pair. Let's hope that it takes 200 more years to repeat the process. Getting a guy with Cheney's Machiavellian nature AND Bush's incompetent inattention AND a Congress which for 6 years turned a blind eye is a one in a million shot.

[Baldwin]

Getting a guy with Cheney's Machiavellian nature AND Bush's incompetent inattention AND a Congress which for 6 years turned a blind eye is a one in a million shot.Well, 1 in 43. Or, at least that's how it turned out; let's hope that it was a fluke.

I don't remember the details of the SCOTUS decision (regarding Cheney claiming executive privilege to keep from disclosing which members of the oil industry dictated our national energy policy), but, if that decision confirmed Cheney's executive standing, couldn't it be used as a precedent against him now?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Actually, it appears that Cheney did not assert executive privilege (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-475) in the task force meeting case. Instead, he claimed that it wasn't actually a task force, or something similarly Clintonian.

However, the court decision linked above provides an interesting overview of the lower court's decision:
While acknowledging that discovery itself might raise serious constitutional questions, the court explained that the Government could assert executive privilege to protect sensitive materials from disclosure. The court noted that if, after discovery, respondents had no evidentiary support for their allegations about de facto members in the Group, the Government could prevail on statutory grounds. Even were it appropriate to address constitutional issues, the court explained, its discovery orders would provide the factual development necessary to determine the extent of the alleged intrusion into the Executive's constitutional authority.
It appears here not to question that Cheney is part of the executive branch. Granted, in this case Bush appointed him to the panel, but still, I wonder how many other precedents there are for treating the veep as an executive position.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

I don't know. It took over 200 years before we got this pair. Let's hope that it takes 200 more years to repeat the process. Getting a guy with Cheney's Machiavellian nature AND Bush's incompetent inattention AND a Congress which for 6 years turned a blind eye is a one in a million shot.

Well, there was the Nixon Admin, where the Machiavellian figure was POTUS in his own right and surrounded himself with like-minded aides.

But, yeah, this is worse.

[BrainGlutton]

4th Installment of the WaPo series on Cheney: "Leaving No Tracks." (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html)

(He must've left some or how did they get the story?)

[elucidator]

Oh, he left tracks, he just didn't worry about them, since the Republicans were certain to dominate American politics for the forseeable future.

[BobLibDem]

Well, there was the Nixon Admin, where the Machiavellian figure was POTUS in his own right and surrounded himself with like-minded aides.

But, yeah, this is worse.

Yes, it is worse. Nixon, for all his faults, actually had some redeeming qualities and at least had some admirable goals. And Tricky Dick didn't abuse the office of the vice president when he was Ike's vP. Bush/Cheney's approach has been "screw everyone else, we're going to take care of our supporters". Turn a surplus into a massive deficit- who cares, the rich got a massive tax cut. Gut environmental regulations- so what, our friends have bigger profits.

[BrainGlutton]

Putting this all in perspective:

When Cheney denied he was in the executive branch, that was for purposes of failure to comply with a presidential directive, applying to all executive offices, on record-keeping and securing classified information and oversight by the National Archives. A directive W now says (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney23jun23,1,2991960.story?track=crosspromo&page=1&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true) he never mean to apply to Cheney's office or his own.

Well, it's a presidential directive, not a piece of Congressional legislation. Who else but the president should get to interpret it?

Which does not mean Congress cannot enact some legislation that would put the president's and VP's offices under the same degree of record-keeping oversight.

Hint, hint.

(According to the U.S. Code, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html) the Archivist has the same authority over vice-presidential records as presidential records.

Which does not necessarily determine the matter WRT interpretation of a non-legislative presidential directive.)

[David Simmons]

I don't know. It took over 200 years before we got this pair. Let's hope that it takes 200 more years to repeat the process. Getting a guy with Cheney's Machiavellian nature AND Bush's incompetent inattention AND a Congress which for 6 years turned a blind eye is a one in a million shot.I agree. However now that the path has been illuminated it won't be all that difficult for those with vast sums of money to duplicate the pattern.

It doesn't need to be a simpleton president and unscupulous vice president. A con man president would be just as bad.

There's something about being president that has been known to turn even the most balanced heads. FDR got pissed because the Supreme Court kept ruling against his New Deal measures. So he tried to increase the Supreme Court to 12 justices so he could appoint three who would be more favorable to him.

Take that propensity and a lack of scruples ...+

[David Simmons]

Which does not mean Congress cannot enact some legislation that would put the president's and VP's offices under the same degree of record-keeping oversight.

Hint, hint.Yes, congress could do that. It would be vetoed and there aren't the votes to override the veto.

I think it's necessary to remember that the Democrats don't really control the Senate. Fifty to forty nine and many of the Democrats elected in 2006 are from Republican districts and are either conservative themselves or have to act like it to keep their seats.

[BrainGlutton]

According to DailKos, (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/26/20438/6939) the reason Cheney wants to avoid scrutiny may be that his office has been (with W's authorization) raiding the budgets of other executive offices, including the president's, the Council on Environmental Quality, the "faith-based initiatives," etc. -- up to 10% of their accounts.

What would the VP's Office do with that much money?!

[Alan Smithee]

Putting this all in perspective:

When Cheney denied he was in the executive branch, that was for purposes of failure to comply with a presidential directive, applying to all executive offices, on record-keeping and securing classified information and oversight by the National Archives. A directive W now says (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney23jun23,1,2991960.story?track=crosspromo&page=1&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true) he never mean to apply to Cheney's office or his own.

Well, it's a presidential directive, not a piece of Congressional legislation. Who else but the president should get to interpret it?

Which does not mean Congress cannot enact some legislation that would put the president's and VP's offices under the same degree of record-keeping oversight.

Hint, hint.

(According to the U.S. Code, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html) the Archivist has the same authority over vice-presidential records as presidential records.

Which does not necessarily determine the matter WRT interpretation of a non-legislative presidential directive.)I agree, it fact, it is the point I asked about earlier. As much as this stinks of disingenuousness and disrespect for law, it is small potatoes compared to Cheney's track record of secrecy and manipulation (well documented in that Washington Post series, BTW--thanks for the links!). Legally, I can't see why the issue came up at all, since Executive Orders are the prerogative of the president anyway.

[RTFirefly]

From the Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-other-things-office-of-vice.html):
2. Because his office is not an entity in the executive branch, but actually a breach in the space/time continuum, Cheney is free to enter at will his own dimension, the realm of Cthulhu and the slime beasts.

<snip>

4. Because his office is not an entity in the executive branch, but technically an executive bathroom, Cheney is free to wipe his ass with whatever documents are handy, memos, executive orders, Constitutions.

5. Because his office is not an entity in the executive branch, but actually a freak show, Cheney is free to bite the heads off chickens. And nosy members of Congress.
Follow the link to the rest of the list.

[Knorf]

I, for one, welcome our new Slime Beast Overlords ....

:p

Ok, sorry.

Clinton got a lot of heat for his semantics mongering. What is Cheney going to get? My guess is some vague grumbling, but nothing will actually be done by the Congress, which even under the Democrats is redefining the word spineless: I've seen more political courage from planaria (http://images.google.com/images?q=planaria).

In the long run, the irony is that I suspect Cheney & Co. are doing severe harm to the power of the executive branch. Cheney is so gung-ho on executive authority in time of war, blah, blah, but the backlash against the executive branch is coming, and it is going to be severe.

[BrainGlutton]

Wonderful cartoon! (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22433)

This one too! (http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/)

[plnnr]

Perhaps as a result of this we'll go back to the Agnew type veep (totally uninvolved) as opposed to the Cheney type.

Agnew was involved to the extent that he was Nixon's attack dog - drumming up support for the "Silent Majority."

Of course, I don't think Cheney has come up with anything quite as mellifluous as "nattering nabobs of negativity."

[BrainGlutton]

Agnew was involved to the extent that he was Nixon's attack dog - drumming up support for the "Silent Majority."

Of course, I don't think Cheney has come up with anything quite as mellifluous as "nattering nabobs of negativity."

Good ol' Spiro! Somewhere, I have a vinyl record of his wit and wisdom, picked up on impulse at a used record store in Ybor City, Tampa, that no longer exists. He was probably the last American politician to refer to "the Establishment" as something he was supporting rather than opposing (and close to the last to use the term at all).

[ElvisL1ves]

Of course, I don't think Cheney has come up with anything quite as mellifluous as "nattering nabobs of negativity."
Neither did Agnew. Bill Safire did, back when he was getting paid to write Republican campaign speeches by the Republicans themselves.

[BrainGlutton]

Heh-heh-heh . . . A Senate panel is cutting off funding for the Vice-President's Office (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/democrats_cheney_2) until Cheney complies with the executive order on record-keeping. :D

[gonzomax]

I don't know. It took over 200 years before we got this pair. Let's hope that it takes 200 more years to repeat the process. Getting a guy with Cheney's Machiavellian nature AND Bush's incompetent inattention AND a Congress which for 6 years turned a blind eye is a one in a million shot.
Congress and the Senate were complicit in the Bush debacle. They had the votes and passed everything Cheney and Bush asked for.

[E-Sabbath]

May not be effective, given the rumor is that the VP's office is raiding the budgets of _other_ offices.

[Spiritus Mundi]

For myself - I think it is clear that when the Vice-President acts as an agent for presidential authority or in a capacity as advisor to the President then the VP is a member of the Executive branch. I also think thae argument that the Vice President is "sometimes" a member of the legislative branch runs into a couple of serious issues fairly quickly.
The President also exercises legislative power (signing, allowing to pass, or vetoing a bill are all legislative functions) but nobody would buy the argument that the President is not a member of the Executive branch.
It's been a long time since my high school civics class, but I seem to recall that the US Constitution specifcally prohibits a member of the Legislative branch from serving in the Executive branch, and that should a Speaker-of-the-House ever succeed to the office of President he would be required to resign his legislative office first.

Really, though, does anybody really believe that the Constitutional nuances are hwat is driving this question? The OVP wishes to exercise Executive authority without submitting to oversight. They will be successful in doing so to exactly the extent that the other branches of government choose to allow.

I did have one interesting question about this, though. Does anybody know under what authority the OVP would be applying classification to document if it is *not* acting as a part of the Executive branch? Do members of the legislative branch have the authority to classify documents without Congressional review?

[BrainGlutton]

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to restore Cheney's funding, after a Dem broke ranks. (http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6359610?nclick_check=1)

[BrainGlutton]

It now appears Ashcroft granted Cheney's office an open line to the DoJ WRT to all its ongoing investigations. (http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/) Presumably that still remains in place.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Well, let's assume that Cheney is waffling back and forth. What are the chances that he'll get nailed for even one instance he happens to be a member of the Executive Branch for even 5 minutes?

[BrainGlutton]

Cheney is now suggesting his office has its own executive privilege, separate from, or "on the same plane as," the president's. (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_asks_for_extension_on_0718.html)

This is in connection with Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas regarding the NSA surveillance program.

[plnnr]

The President signed over control of the government to the Vice President while he underwent an colonoscopy. I'd say that's a pretty strong indicator the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch.