It strikes me as odd, constitutionally speaking, that to be elected
president one must go through a vetting process that takes at least
two years in order to win the nomination of one of the two major
parties, followed by another two months of intense electioneering
before the plebiscite on the first Tuesday in November, only to have
the vice-presidential candidate chosen last-minute at the party
convention followed by the same two months of following the leader.
Since it has, unfortunately, been too often the case that the VP has
succeeded to the presidency, not by election, which gives him, and
potentially her, a built in weakness, see, e.g. Gerald Ford who
succeeded RMN following the resignation, unless and until elected in
his, or her, own right, see, e.g. HST, LBJ, then why do we require,
not to say suffer, such intensity for the presidency and so little
intensity for the Vice-presidency.
Perhaps the irony is not so much constitutional as such, as much as it
is in democratic theory, which I presume has something to do with the
Constitution.
Just a thought, inspired by the nomination of a little known governor
from Alaska by the GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, as his running
mate. Let's say she's terrific. Why weren't we alerted to her as a
potential candidate two years ago? Because then she was not a
governor but only the mayor of a small suburban town near Anchorage?
If you want McCain, you have to accept that his running-mate may well
have to lead the country during one of his potential terms.
If two months is good enough to vet her, I suppose that opens the door
for many others whose domestic (nationally), international, and
military experience is as great, or little.
She does meet the minimum age (35) and natural born in the U.S.
qualifications (about which there's been a question regarding the
senator, born in the Great State of the Panama Canal Zone), however,
those being the prime qualifications in the founding document.
Lincoln was from the sticks, but had been in public life for decades
before taking on Douglas, whom he debated up and down Illinois, to
national attention, on the great issue of the day, slavery. He'd been
vetted nationally for ample time, longer than 60 days, before his
election. The nation lucked out with Lincoln.
What over-riding national issues are the two competing candidates, and
their running mates, addressing?
America's proper role and place in the world? The proper use of force?
***
I submitted the above to the Conlawprofs listserv. Among the reactions was one observing that while the only two constitutional duties of the vice-president were to preside over the Senate to break a tie vote, and to wait and be ready in case of a vacancy upstairs, which, I guess, involves checking the obituaries in the Washington Post every morning, the current incumbent has allowed VP Dick Cheney to run his own foreign policy operation out of the White House, or wherever he hides, w/o being confirmed by the Senate. The writer thinks this an unwise departure and suggestst that if the VP is going to take over functions of the cabinet, that he get himself confirmed by the Senate just as they must.
Seems like he's got a point, I should think.
Comments