I know this is quite lengthy, but I hope you will read it to the end.  I stress to the end, because with the recent bailout program being approved, versus the number of US citizens against it, the last paragraph in my post gave me pause to wonder--if there was a (close to) unanimous popular support of something so magnanimous, perhaps there should be an amendment that states that should this situation occur, it should be put to vote, at the least our Senators and Representatives would have to vote based on the dictates of their constituency.

President and Vice President:  Article II, Section I of the Constitution, not Article I, as stated by Biden during the recent debate.

Despite the fact that the position of Vice President has changed over decades, based on Biden's description of the duties of the Vice President, he clearly stepped over the line. 

However, based on the changes that have occurred, Biden is well within the realm of what may be expected of him in that position.  In describing what he viewed as his role as Vice President (to Obama), he stated the following:  "...I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice. "   (Biden was duplicitous two faced in his response to the question of VP responsibilities.)

Biden stated, "And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs."  (Vice Presidential Debate, Thursday, October 2, 2008)

That said, it is rather ironic that (others) would take Palin to task for suggesting her responsibilities would be in the realm of what McCain would expect or ask her to complete, initiate, be a part of, act in his behalf, etc.

Palin stated, "We will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and  ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

Biden stated that "...Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."  (Note that it would be President Bush's determination of what responsibilities Vice-President Cheny assumed.)

During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.

The following is:

(Reprinted from:

Mark O. Hatfield, with the Senate Historical Office,

Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993,

Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997, pp. xiii-xxiii.)

During the twentieth century, the focus of the vice-presidency has shifted dramatically from being mainly a legislative position to a predominately executive post. As modern-era presidents began playing an increasing role as legislative agenda setters, their vice presidents regularly attended cabinet meetings and received executive assignments. Vice presidents represented their presidents' administrations on Capitol Hill, served on the National Security Council, chaired special commissions, acted as high level representatives of the government to foreign heads of state, and assumed countless other chores - great and trivial - at the president's direction. Beginning with Richard Nixon, they have occupied spacious quarters in the Executive Office Building and assembled staffs of specialists to extend their reach and influence. From fewer than 20 staff members at the end of Nixon's vice-presidency, the number increased to 60 during the 1970s, with the addition of not only political and support staff but advisers on domestic policy and national security. Walter Mondale expanded the vice president's role as presidential adviser, establishing the tradition of weekly lunches with the president, and subsequent vice presidents have continued to be active participants in their administrations.

As a footnote to this posting, I would like to make people aware of a Constitutional Right in terms of proposing amendments.

Popular Amendment

One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."

It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.