In my opinion, no. I like having a clear succession and I want to have a part in selecting that successor. I have no part in selecting the Secretary of State other than voting for the President.
The author’s issue seems to be a complaint about what the news-people choose to talk about. I suggest that’s not the fault of the present Constitutional setup.
I have no skin in that game, being British, but no. Many things (the military chain of command in time of crisis being one of them) require a clear line of succession. There is also the point that many people would probably prefer the VP (whether a named position or de facto) to be of the same political persuasion as the President; although there is AFAIK no actual requirement for that, it’s been that way for a long time. I’ve just looked it up; apparently the next in line after the VP is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Were the office of VP to disappear, that would mean that the replacement for Obama (should anything unfortunate happen to him) would be a Republican.
I suspect that would cause a rather major stink, to say the least. if you like that idea, consider whether you still would if the position was reversed in the future.
One problem with the office of VP is that as originally conceived (again AFAIK) the office was supposed to be a spare, with nothing to do unless something happened to the President. It would be a little difficult to expect anyone to do exactly that, and keep up with events and politics as is really required for such a person to be in any way effective if he should be needed – and give him nothing to do. Doing that would attract people even more useless than Biden – or the ex-Miss Alaska amateur moose hunter, for that matter.
What causes otherwise sane individuals to manifest Woodrow Wilson-like desires to muck about with constitutional fundamentals? I was reading Berg’s biography of Wilson, wherein Berg highlighted Wilson’s pathological, Aspergeresque need to draft constitutions for every single organization he became a part of. They just can’t stand that gate blocking the lane, can they?
Mandel proposes routing the succession through the Cabinet, claiming that the Secretaries would of necessity have greater experience and capacity for the top job. This ignores the current administration’s Cabinet, which is stocked with nullities, clock-punchers, blowhards and partisan malingerers. And this isn’t even really a new development! Presidents have been doing end-runs around their politically-selected wet-squib Secretaries since the days of Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet” and Lincoln’s disastrous, chaotic “Team of Rivals”.
Rather than abolishing the vice-presidency, maybe we ought to do something about the Cabinet, which is over-large, and fails to really represent the current mechanism running the Executive branch?
If we are going to go through all the steps to amend the constitution, let us put the effort to better use than this non-solution. But if somebody does go to the trouble, then instead of abolishing the office, maybe give it more to do, make it a little more independent.
For instance, let the VP make all the judicial appointments. Sure, he will probably take advice or clearance from the president who brung him, but he wouldn’t have to, and that alone might be enough to end the current practice of selecting a VP from the opposite wing of the party. Just sayin’.
“Rather than abolishing the vice-presidency, maybe we ought to do something about the Cabinet, which is over-large, and fails to really represent the current mechanism running the Executive branch?”
Excellent idea. Let’s get rid of the Departments of:
Education
Commerce
Interior
Energy
Health and Human Services
Labor
And that will reduce the size of the Cabinet wonderfully.
Did you forget the EPA?
IMHO the EPA or something like it is a necessity. Unfortunately, there are some who would exploit a lack of regulation on certain matters for gain. Rivers catching fire, the air of various cities being converted to poison gas… (And BTW, this doesn’t only apply to the USA. It was London that lost 4000+ people to smog in a couple of weeks, sometime in the 1950s. I don’t remember the timing details.)
In my opinion, no. I like having a clear succession and I want to have a part in selecting that successor. I have no part in selecting the Secretary of State other than voting for the President.
The author’s issue seems to be a complaint about what the news-people choose to talk about. I suggest that’s not the fault of the present Constitutional setup.
I have no skin in that game, being British, but no. Many things (the military chain of command in time of crisis being one of them) require a clear line of succession. There is also the point that many people would probably prefer the VP (whether a named position or de facto) to be of the same political persuasion as the President; although there is AFAIK no actual requirement for that, it’s been that way for a long time. I’ve just looked it up; apparently the next in line after the VP is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Were the office of VP to disappear, that would mean that the replacement for Obama (should anything unfortunate happen to him) would be a Republican.
I suspect that would cause a rather major stink, to say the least. if you like that idea, consider whether you still would if the position was reversed in the future.
One problem with the office of VP is that as originally conceived (again AFAIK) the office was supposed to be a spare, with nothing to do unless something happened to the President. It would be a little difficult to expect anyone to do exactly that, and keep up with events and politics as is really required for such a person to be in any way effective if he should be needed – and give him nothing to do. Doing that would attract people even more useless than Biden – or the ex-Miss Alaska amateur moose hunter, for that matter.
What causes otherwise sane individuals to manifest Woodrow Wilson-like desires to muck about with constitutional fundamentals? I was reading Berg’s biography of Wilson, wherein Berg highlighted Wilson’s pathological, Aspergeresque need to draft constitutions for every single organization he became a part of. They just can’t stand that gate blocking the lane, can they?
Mandel proposes routing the succession through the Cabinet, claiming that the Secretaries would of necessity have greater experience and capacity for the top job. This ignores the current administration’s Cabinet, which is stocked with nullities, clock-punchers, blowhards and partisan malingerers. And this isn’t even really a new development! Presidents have been doing end-runs around their politically-selected wet-squib Secretaries since the days of Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet” and Lincoln’s disastrous, chaotic “Team of Rivals”.
Rather than abolishing the vice-presidency, maybe we ought to do something about the Cabinet, which is over-large, and fails to really represent the current mechanism running the Executive branch?
If we are going to go through all the steps to amend the constitution, let us put the effort to better use than this non-solution. But if somebody does go to the trouble, then instead of abolishing the office, maybe give it more to do, make it a little more independent.
For instance, let the VP make all the judicial appointments. Sure, he will probably take advice or clearance from the president who brung him, but he wouldn’t have to, and that alone might be enough to end the current practice of selecting a VP from the opposite wing of the party. Just sayin’.
“Rather than abolishing the vice-presidency, maybe we ought to do something about the Cabinet, which is over-large, and fails to really represent the current mechanism running the Executive branch?”
Excellent idea. Let’s get rid of the Departments of:
Education
Commerce
Interior
Energy
Health and Human Services
Labor
And that will reduce the size of the Cabinet wonderfully.
Did you forget the EPA?
IMHO the EPA or something like it is a necessity. Unfortunately, there are some who would exploit a lack of regulation on certain matters for gain. Rivers catching fire, the air of various cities being converted to poison gas… (And BTW, this doesn’t only apply to the USA. It was London that lost 4000+ people to smog in a couple of weeks, sometime in the 1950s. I don’t remember the timing details.)