Lets say that Pence has a change of heart/mind/anti-psychotic meds and decides to openly oppose Trump’s policies. He describes the POTUS in terms that would make a doper blush while actively supporting the opposition party in every way legally open to him.
What recourse does Trump have? Can the VP be fired or otherwise removed from office for exercising his rights as a citizen?
He has to be impeached.
Fun fact: Although POTUS is limited to two terms, VPOTUS isn’t.
AIUI, the Vice President doesn’t have many duties that are actually required by law (other than breaking ties in the Senate, I think), so although the President can’t fire him, he can assign all his responsibilities to someone else, making the VP irrelevant.
The Vice President is independently elected from the President. The President has no direct authority over him. He can’t be fired. The only way he can be removed from office is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
Dick Cheney famously kept a signed resignation letter in his office in case he became incapacitated so Bush could replace him quickly.
Nobody would want to be Vice President for more than eight years. My cite is the documentary VEEP.
The VP can be frozen out. Not invited to meetings. No briefings. No contact with the President or his staff.
VP Truman famously was completely clueless about the Manhattan project. His briefings on war strategy and domestic policy after FDR’s death must have taken several days.
I guess the President could even revoke the VP’s security clearance. Making it illegal for him to be around classified documents. That would restrict meetings he could attend.
The VP serves at the pleasure of the President. He has no official duties except casting votes to break ties in the Senate.
No he doesn’t.
Cite? What does the President have to do with issuing security clearances?
Or he could just not invite him to those meetings.
It’s already been stated that this is absolutely wrong. The President cannot fire or dismiss the VP.
The only duty specified in the Constitution is presiding over the Senate, which includes cast a tie-breaking vote in the case of ties and presiding over impeachment trials of Federal officials besides the President. He may have other official duties, depending on what the President requires him to do. He is regarded as a member of the Cabinet, and by statute is a member of the National Security Council.
The President as chief of the Executive Branch and commander-in-chief is the sole ultimate authority on classification and access to classified material. In practice, clearance is almost always delegated by the President to executive branch agencies who conduct background checks according to the procedures specified in EO 12968 (“Access to Classified Information.”)
Since that is an executive order, not a statute, it is within the President’s inherent authority to set the normal process aside and make his own determination about who, if anyone, should be eligible to have access to classified information.
I meant serve as in the President giving the VP responsibilities and stuff to do.
Of course I know the VP is elected and can’t be fired by the President.
It does seem that the modern Presidency requires shifting some of the work to the VP. There’s too many things on the President’s calendar. But, that’s entirely up to him.
Words mean things. That is not what those words mean.
Wasn’t this plot line covered on The West Wing?
AND take over the Presidency under appropriate circumstances (death, resignation, inability to discharge duties)
That meaning is wrong. “To serve at the pleasure of [whomever]” has a specific meaning. It means that person can be dismissed by their boss for any reason whatever, without a specific cause and without recourse. Members of the Cabinet and other federal political appointees in the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the President. The Vice President, members of Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court do not. They cannot be fired by the President, but must be removed by other means.
I misused the phrase. I thought my meaning was clear based on the other things posted.
Firing the VP got laid to rest early in this thread. It can’t and won’t happen without impeachment.
I was trying to say the VP serves the interests of the President. The working relationship between the President and VP seems to depend a lot on personalities. How well they get along and mutual trust. How comfortable the President is in delegating responsibilities.
Abusing that relationship wouldn’t bode well for the VP. But he can’t be fired.
The closest thing you’ll see in the modern political era was Franklin Roosevelt’s relationship with two of his Vice Presidents, John Nance Garner and Henry Wallace. Garner and FDR had completely broken over policy by 1937, and Garner spent the rest of his second term as VP mostly planning to run for President in 1940.
Garner’s successor, Henry Wallace, had some actual, real responsibilities under FDR, but a public feud inside the Administration put Wallace on the outs., and FDR made it known he’d prefer someone else as VP in 1944. He did, however, appoint Wallace Secretary of Commerce, presumably some sort of weird consolation prize.
Trump revoked John Brennan’s security clearance in August.
John C. Calhoun was Q’s VP and also Andrew Johnson’s for the first term. He wanted to run again, but AJ didn’t want him and managed to put Van Buren on his ticket. Who eventually succeeded AJ. But that was nearly 200 years ago and a lot has changed.