[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL: FLASH-Ted Stevens Convicted-

[Brad Haslett]

Ben,

"Then Joe Biden would take over. No worries."

That's pretty damn funny!  It was meant to be a joke, right?  Joe's
running mate may not know how many states there are but at least Joe
knows who was President in 1929 and when the TV was invented. Of
course, if he blows off any more TV stations for actually asking
questions he'll be hard pressed to hold a press conference.

Below is an opinion from my favorite blogger and law professor.  Seems
Ole Joe v Caribou Barbie isn't so smart after all.

Brad

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

October 27, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Where Does the Vice President Belong?
By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS

THE presidential campaign has taken a detour into a dispute over the
constitutional status of the vice presidency. It all started when
Sarah Palin asserted in her debate with Joe Biden that the vice
president should play an important role in the legislative branch.

Ms. Palin has been roundly mocked for her claim. But she was probably right.

Article I of the Constitution, which describes the authority of the
legislative branch, says that "the vice president of the United States
shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they
be equally divided." Aside from the job of replacing a president who
dies or is unable to serve, the only vice presidential duties that are
spelled out in the Constitution are legislative in character.

But if the vice president is a legislative official, then the exercise
of executive power by the vice president raises important
constitutional questions related to the separation of powers. The
Supreme Court has held on more than one occasion that legislative
officials cannot exercise executive power. The Court would likely dub
this a "political question" that is beyond its purview, but Congress
is empowered to remedy this sort of thing by legislation.

And Congress should do just that: pass a law to prohibit the vice
president from exercising executive power. Extensive vice presidential
involvement in the executive branch — the role enjoyed by Dick Cheney
and Al Gore — is not only unconstitutional, but also a bad idea.

The most important function of a vice president is to serve as a spare
president. Using the spare president in the ordinary course of
business is as unwise as driving on one's spare tire. Spares should be
kept pristine, for when they are really needed.

If the president resigns or is removed from office, a vice president
who has been involved in the activities of the executive branch is
also likely to be at risk for impeachment. Just as important, a vice
president who is enmeshed in the affairs of the president cannot offer
a fresh start for the executive branch.

The joke may turn out to be on Mr. Biden, who upbraided Ms. Palin for
her reading of the Constitution. Presumably Mr. Biden thinks Barack
Obama chose him for the same reason that George W. Bush chose Mr.
Cheney, as a way of making up for a lack of experience in foreign
affairs. Mr. Bush's choice led him to rely on Mr. Cheney in ways that
were unprecedented — and unconstitutional.

Let's hope Mr. Obama disappoints Mr. Biden. The Constitution and the
best interests of the country suggest that the best place for the vice
president is in the Senate.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee.


On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> wrote:
>
> Bill;
>
> Remember, Stevens was not convicted of bribery.  The prosecutors were smart
> enough not to over-reach or over-charge. He was convicted of violating a
> disclosure law which is much easier to prove.  Everybody and their brother
> seems to know about Obama's dealings with Rezko so I really don't know if he
> has the same non-disclosure problem as Stevens.
>
> If Obama were convicted of a crime, we would run into the same issues we ran
> into with Clinton (and Nixon for that matter). Impeachment (which is only
> the charge, like an "indictment") is permitted only for "high crimes and
> misdemeanors" and they are whatever the House of Reps says they are.
> Conviction in the Senate would mean removal from office. Then Joe Biden
> would take over. No worries.
>
> Best;
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
> Bill Effros wrote:
>>
>> Ben,
>>
>> Stevens was convicted of doing exactly the same thing Obama did.
>>
>> Obama's house was not purchased by Obama, it was purchased by convicted
>> political briber Antoin "My Political Godfather" Rezko and deposited
>> into an "Illinois Land Trust" that named Obama as the beneficiary.
>>
>> Obama then took the house and grounds out of the trust, and claimed to
>> have purchased them for 1/2 the asking price (in a rising market)
>> leaving Rezko (who was simultaneously filing for bankruptcy) as the
>> owner of record of a plot of land with no street access that was not
>> buildable.
>>
>> Rezko is talking to the feds, the same way Steven's fixer, Allen, talked
>> to the feds to get a reduced sentence.
>>
>> Seems to me political bribery is automatic Presidential impeachment
>> according to the constitution.  Do I have that right?
>>
>> Bill Effros
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>> This is important.  He will almost certainly not be re-elected this Nov
>>> 4,
>>> which will provide an opportunity another pro-Obama vote in the Senate
>>> next
>>> year. Talk about a bridge to nowhere.....
>>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3A-FLASH-Ted-Stevens-Convicted--tp20196211p20198297.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>