The Mighty Vice Presidency

Most unastute and incorrectly informed political observers (a.k.a., 24 hour news cycle media types) candidly endorse the notion that vice presidential candidates are important.

This is a lie!

Any ignoramus trying to sell a story will want you to believe their perception of the world is correct. Apologetically, my discussion here is not on the oxymoronic approach of the profit-driven media in selling disasters, crises, scandals, miseries, and hatred (among other things), while appearing compassionately degrading and the supposed moral authority and unquestioned expert on all matters incorporated. Sensational or biased news reporting is not really news at all—it is capitalism trapped in totalitarianism, masked with ridiculous stories teetering on the mundane and meaningless, exploited to the point where reality becomes inconsequential.

Instead, my focus is on the hype of presidential candidates selecting running mates and why all the ensuing fuss is nothing to be concerned about anyway.

Deep within the confines of the United States Constitution, you will find very little mention about the role and importance of the vice presidency. The founding fathers were more concerned with the powers granted to Congress and the role of the President. The Vice President and the Supreme Court were intentionally left weak and ostensibly insignificant in terms of power in the newly established federal government.

Only the Supreme Court has been able to emerge from the faded ink of the Constitution with more unbridled power and overreaching influence, thanks mostly to the implementation of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, an unquestioned exoconstitutional power created for the benefit of the court and written by the court in 1803. As Dan Jones, my former political science professor at the University of Utah, would proclaim: "The Constitution is nothing more than what the Supreme Court says it is." And if the Supreme Court says the judiciary has more power and it's somewhere in the Constitution, apparently there's no checks and balances to keep the federal judicial system from running amuck. (Curious observation: Merriam-Webster defines "amuck" as "a murderous frenzy that has traditionally been regarded as occurring especially in Malaysian culture." If you replace Malaysian with American in the definition and speak figuratively of the frenzy, I think you get the picture.)

But the vice presidency hasn't had as much luck. From the early days of John Adams, our nation's first Vice President, it was immediately obvious there is very little power and responsibility. One of the Vice President's delegated constitutional responsibilities is to preside as President of the United States Senate. Unsuccessfully and with much resentment, Mr. Adams frequently tried to interject his views into the debates of the Senate. The only real power, it was found, was the Vice President casting tie-breaking votes. Other than breaking tied votes and mere ceremonial responsibilities, the Vice President does not participate in debates, introduce or sponsor legislation, or sit on Senate committees. Even though the Vice President is the President of the Senate, he does not enjoy any of the powers and responsibilities of the Senate. Mr. Adams, speaking from personal experience, said the vice presidency is "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

The only other constitutional power belonging to the Vice President isn't really a power until such person ascends to the presidency. If you recall, the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, was implemented to clarify what really happens to the presidency upon the death, incapacity, or impairment of the President. Prior to the 25th Amendment, the Vice President held an ambiguous position, not really certain where or what he should do in certain cases, even in cases involving incapacity of a President.

Historically, the vice presidency used to be the red ribbon given to the guy in second place--some sort of consolation prize for running for president. Over time, the process of electing a Vice President changed. Yes, over the years, past Presidents have chosen to include the Vice President on certain matters (or leave them completely in the dark) and Congress has granted the Vice President additional responsibilities. However, from a purely constitutional perspective, the office of the Vice President of the United States is insignificant and is merely ceremonial. Harry Truman, who served as Vice President to President Franklin D. Roosevelt for three months until the President's death, remarked that the job of the vice president is to "go to weddings and funerals." In other words, the vice presidency still isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

Besides, voters don't really vote for presidential candidates because of the other person on the ticket. Voters want discussion and promises of resolution on issues important to them in their small spheres of unattended influence. Promises are exactly what voters get—lots of them. Although it would be a complete waste of my time, I would still find it fascinating to find someone who has conducted an unbiased study on politicians’ promises and how successful they were in, first, trying to implement what they promised and, second, if they were triumphant. I would suspect the number of promises made compared to the number of promises attempted and number of promises fulfilled would be staggeringly low.

Back on topic--Given the discussion thus far, is the vice presidency really all that important? I can't find any competent, sustainable evidence in the Constitution to show the importance the vice presidency. Congress has granted some responsibilities, but those same responsibilities are redundantly placed in other positions within the federal government, too. Example: when Dick Cheney was hiding in the cave in the days following September 11, did the government collapse or cease to function properly?

Let me pose this question: do you honestly think the selection of a running mate is far more important than any policy position pertaining to international relations, military matters, national security, the domestic economy, judicial appointments, the role and growth of the federal government, the rights of individual Americans, and your personal tax burden and how your tax money is spent? The vice presidency is essentially (and intentionally) a purposeless, trivial position. Why place such a profound importance on something pointless?

Why does the media think any vice presidential candidate is really important in determining the direction of politics and policies in America? The only real reason: it doesn't, but at least it makes money!