This will be short, but I just wanted to get it out there.
The bottom line is, the Vice President's only constitutional duties, unless the President cannot serve, is to preside over the Senate. The fact that modern VPs have not exercised this duty except ceremonially and to break ties doesn't change the fact.
There are two consequences of this.
First, is the VP in the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch?
According to the Constitution, since the only duties are in the Senate, the VP is a Legislative Branch office, unless or until he must take office as President of the United States, in which case he obviously leaves the Legislative Branch and enters the Executive Branch.
Does this mean that Cheney was right all along? Not really, although he was partially right. Cheney's position was that he could sort of be in the Executive Branch when he wanted executive priviledges, and in the Legislative Branch when he wanted those priviledges. This is not what the constitution says, but on the other hand, the part about the VP being is the Legislative Branch is correct. It's just that the VP is not part of the Executive Branch.
Second, who runs the Senate?
Historically, there is absolutely no ambiguity that the Founders intended the VP (in his role as President of the Senate) to run the Senate, that is, to preside over it. Why? Because that's exactly what the Founders did when they got into the Senate and the Vice Presidency. Apparently Adams was a lousy President of the Senate, but Jefferson and Burr were excellent in that role.
Now, before the 12th Amendment was ratified, the President of the Senate (aka the VP) was the opponent of the President in the general election. Therefore, having him as the President of the Senate increased the separation of powers, because the VP and the President didn't get along on policy matters that well. However, after the 12th Amendment, the two presidents tended to agree on most matters, and that was annoying to the Senators, who thought of it as a kind of instrusion, and as a diminishment of the separation of powers. That thought by Senators, coupled with general laziness and ambition on the part of VPs, resulted in our current situation, whereby strictly as a matter of tradition, the VP stays away from the Senate most of the time.
Since this then left the VP with no constitutional duties, various VPs have done various things, either on their own, or at the request of the President. But these things have always been ad hoc, and this is the reason why the VP slot is such a despised office.
However, I think locking the VP out of the Senate is a mistake, especially when the Senate and the President are of the same party (parties are a concept the Constitution ignore completely). In that case, for a close political ally of the president to run the Senate could be a very good thing, since it would increase the linkage between the two bodies on policy matters.
When Biden and Obama spoke about becoming running mates, it was decided mutually that Biden's role would be that of liaison to Congress. This is really ironic because it appears that it has never occurred to Biden that in fact, if he should decide to accept it, the Constitution has created exactly that mission for the VP, at least as it concerns the Senate.
Well, that's what I think about this. I feel that (1) the VP should pick back up the constitutional role to actively preside over the Senate; that this would be a change from tradition, yes, but there could be many advantages to it. And (2) that I personally would like to discourage attacking Palin on this one, since I believe that she is correct. Does she understand that there are perhaps 150 years of tradition against what is outlined in the Constitution? I don't know. I hope she does. But in terms of what the Constitution actually says, and what its implications could be for Obama/Biden, I think the concept is worth considering.
Greg Shenaut