I thought of an interesting question. Can the Senate expel the President of the Senate, i.e., the Vice President, from its body as it can other senators, for ethical violations, etc.? Or would that be unconstitutional?
Not in the same manner as it can expel one of its members. The VP is not a member of the Senate.
However, if the VP is impeached by the House he can certainly be convicted by the Senate in which case he or she doesn’t preside or sit in on sessions, no longer being the VP.
The interesting (and as yet unaswered) question being, Who presides over the impeachment trial? :eek: 
Why wouldn’t it be the Chief Justice?
What if the VP, as President of the Senate, is presiding in a way that violates that body’s rules (refusing to call on members of the opposite party, etc.)? How would he be disciplined?
DS, it appears that our minds are running on parallel tracks this morning:
Query: V-P Cheney Impeached; He gets to preside at his own Senate trial?
No. The Chief Justice only presides if the President is on trial. In all other cases the Constitution is silent on who should preside. Oddly although it occured to the Founding Fathers that it would be a conflict of interest for the VP to preside as he’d get a promotion if the Senate removed to the President didn’t occur to them to make a provison for the VP himself being on trial. I’m sure there are legal maneuvers the Senate can use to prevent him from presiding. Even if they can’t unlike a normal trial the Senate can overule every one of his actions by a simple majority.
I think the fact that the VP isn’t considered explicitly in the impeachment issue shows just what the founding fathers thought of the Vice-Presidential office. <snigger>
Actually when you come right down to it, the Constitution says that the VP shall preside over the Senate. It could be argued that during an impeachment trial the Senate is not sitting as the Senate but rather as a court. It seems that maybe the Congress could decide to give that special court any presiding officer it wanted to, just as it seems to have done in the case of other federal officers lower than the President.
If not spelled out in the Constitution, the Senate gets to make its own rules and SCOTUS stays out of it (ref: the trial of Alcee Hastings). If the Senate wanted to have the Chief Justice or President Pro Tempore or an outside person conduct the trial, they can as long as a majority vote for it.
This analysis ignores the fact that it is the Senate that conducts the Trial. “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” So they are sitting as the Senate, the House having impeached the judge, President, Vice-President, or other civil officer of the United States.
I’m not certain why people always want to offer up torturous readings of things in the Constitution which are more simply explained, unless it’s so they can be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Aclose reading of your cite indicates to me that you are correct. The framers intended that the Senate, qua Senate, try the impeachment. They did say, “when sitting for that purpose” after all.
I agree, and that’s very likely to happen, if a VP was ever impeached by the House and came before the Senate for his or her trial. The impropriety of a VP presiding over his or her own trial would be glaringly obvious. The Senate already has its own rules, which can be changed by majority vote. Actually, I’m kind of surprised the Senate hasn’t already provided for that eventuality - I saw nothing directly on point here: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/