Don’t know if this belongs in FQ or Politics so feel free to move. The reason I ask this question is that GOP is castigating Harris for not doing anything about border issues, but what could she actually have the power or authority to do? This is general question about any VP by the way.
The VP has no inherent executive power. That’s because all executive power rests, in theory, in the President. In case of temporary inability to act, the President can delegate his powers to the VP (as, for instance, GWB did to Dick Cheney when Bush underwent surgery); but in that case it’s still presidential power being temporarily exercised by the VP; it’s not some sort of inherent vice presidential power.
That’s at least the constitutional position. In practice, the President can give the VP far-reaching powers by assigning him a coordinating role within the cabinet, as, again, GWB did with Cheney. But that was an exception; normally, President don’t do this, and the vice presidency is an entirely powerless office. Even its most important constitutional role, presiding over the Senate, is usually taken away from it.
Thanks for info, but it’ll be useless telling GOPers that
The VP has power if the President delegates it to him/her. And in the case of Harris and the border:
Within months of taking office, President Joe Biden assigned his vice president, Kamala Harris, to effectively become a leading point person on the border, coordinate diplomatic relationships and address the “root causes” of migration into the United States.
There is one executive power the VP has. Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, they can, if agreed to by a majority of the Cabinet, take power as acting President.
There’s a vast difference between talking, coordinating, and investigating and have any real power. Any staff member or consultant could do any or all of that. Changing or establishing policy would have to be done by the president or a relevant cabinet member who did have powers. Harris’ role was that of an envoy only.
[Moderating]
If that’s the purpose of this thread, then P&E it is.
The VP can also cast a tie breaking vote in the senate which can be powerful. VP Harris has done that 33 times.
Even this foreigner knows that a former VP is supposed to have said the job wasn’t worth a bucket of warm [bodily fluid quoted variably]. Mind you, he did the job for eight years, and with some effect, it seems.
Mathematically it’s equivalent to an ordinary senatorial seat (because the vote of any ordinary senator will also matter only in case the vote is otherwise tied), so in effect it means the President’s party gets one seat in the Senate for free. Actually it means less than that because AIUI the VP is barred from participating in the work of the Senate other than votes, such as committees. But of course in a highly partisan environment, where the Senate is usually divided close to 50-50, it can make a big difference.
Harris can head down to the Senate and take up the gavel any time she wants to. She just has better things to do with her time than listen to morning speeches and sit through endless quorum calls.
Yeah, the President Pro Tem only presides in the absence of the Vice President, so in principle, the VP has control of when that power is taken away. It just usually doesn’t matter.
Maybe I am not thinking this through, but my idea is that the veep has approximately half the voting power of a senator. The reason is that the tie-breaking power is only effective when the number of senators voting is an even number. When an odd number, every senator potentially can affect the result, but the veep cannot.
Actually, this was not true until roughly 25 years ago when a more collegial senate routinely allowed vote pairing, so all 100 senators had their vote recorded even if they couldn’t make it to the chamber. But now that you actually have to be physically present, I think they do not normally have 100 senators recorded as voting, and an odd number is common. Or do I have that wrong?
Then you could say that the veep doesn’t have real legislative power because it would be a near-scandal if their vote on the tie was contrary to the president’s desire. Does anyone know if a veep ever did it anyway?
Of course, none of this has to do with executive powers, only legislative. And I agree that the veep has little more executive power than an outside consultant.
P.S. This should change! By law, nuclear weapons launch should be by vote of some sort of security cabinet, and the veep is an obvious candidate for membership. Maybe it would require a constitutional amendment 
I can see your logic, but I think this is counteracted by the fact that in some situations, a normal senator’s vote can only trigger the VP’s tiebreaking vote rather than decide the issue. Let’s dissect the scenarios.
Suppose an odd number of senators (say, 99) vote and you’re one of them. Without your vote, the tally is tied at 49-49. Then your vote will make the difference whether the motion is passed or not.
Now suppose that an even number of senators (say, all 100) vote, and you’re one of them. Without you, the tally is 50 in favour, 49 against. If you vote in favour, the motion is passed. If you bite against, it’s a tie, and the VP’s tie breaking vote comes into play.
So I’d say that mathematically your vote as a normal senator is still equivalent to that of a VP. You have the edge over the VP in that your vote matters in cases of both odd and even number of voting senators, but the VP has the edge in the sense that in half of those situations, your vote only works so as to trigger the VP’s - then decisive - vote, and these two effects balance each other out.
The Vice President is by statute a member of the United States National Security Council, a part of the executive office of the president.
ETA: But the purpose of the National Security Council is to advise the president so it could be argued that membership in the council does not give she or he executive power.
Please forgive my grammar mistake.
You’re probably correct, although I am wondering if perhaps the veep then has approximately 75 percent of the power of a senator.
Suppose Senator Me, who has not yet voted, walks into the chamber and sees 49 in favor, 50 against, on the tally. Then I have the power to defeat the measure. But I do not have the power to pass the bill, since if I vote in favor, I am really just passing my voting power to the veep. So when there are an even number of senators present and voting, a senator has half the power as when there are an odd number present.
This seems a surprisingly-to-me subtle question; I probably have it wrong.
.
That was also my thinking. The voting power of the VO probably sits somewhere between half a senatorial vote and a full one. A subtle question indeed.
I think you’re both applying math to a situation that is not appropriate.
What if the Senator walks in and sees 29 in favor and 70 opposed. Mathematically, is that Senator’s vote worth nothing no matter whether it is aye or nay? Or sees 69 in favor and 30 opposed and then votes in favor. Does that make the aye worth 0.7 or 0.0? Shouldn’t the total value of fractions equal some given whole rather than varying from vote to vote? Shouldn’t nays count as -1? Does it mathematically matter that a 100-0 vote accomplishes nothing more than a 50-50 vote decided by the Vice President?
To put it another way, ask yourselves whether a 3-point shot that wins a game 102-101 is mathematically worth more than a 3-point shot when the score is 0-0. After-the-game commentary will certainly talk about the former to the exclusion of the latter but that is perception rather than math.