How Section Four Of the 25th Amendment Is Triggered
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
Nope. Acting Assistant Attorney General Larry Sims' opinion regarding the VP was incorrect.
3 U.S. Code § 301
The VP is an elected Executive Officer of the United States, but is not the head of any Executive department or agency, nor an official within any said department or agency.
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 117 (1926) had nothing to do with the VP, but rather POTUS' exclusive authority to remove appointed executive officers/officials without the consent of the Senate. Again, the VP is not [normally] appointed (Ford and Rockefeller) and even in the case of vacancy/succession, the VP is not the head or member of any Executive department or agency.
The rest of the Sims memo is interesting in its summary of the history between the back and forth power struggle over the President and Congress, and the dramatic growth of the executive branch to the point that POTUS would have any need to delegate away his authority and responsibilities (not a good thing), and yet still emphasizing that certain powers/authority CANNOT ever be delegated away.
So I repeat, the VP has no military authority, nor can have any. His role and powers are clearly, explicitly defined by the Constitution. They are minimal by design. Preside over the Senate. Break ties. Serve as backup POTUS. That's it. He's not an appointed head of any executive department or agency. Can't be. Separate offices. Can't hold multiple, in the same way if Senate Pro Temp is to succeed as POTUS due to vacancy, then they must resign from Congress.
Even if modern VPs have flexed their "perceived" power over the last few administrations, that doesn't make it constitutionally legal.
I sure hope we find out... perhaps the special edition boxset with behind the scenes footage and director commentary?
Yes, over the past several administrations the VP has been brought more into the scene... it seems that this trend may have started even earlier than that Sims memo (there was a similar memo from Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach on March 9th 1961... interesting timing with JFK and Bay of Pigs a month later eh?). But as I've said and will continue to say, the Constitution simply doesn't authorize these actions. Katzenbach even admits this in the memo:
Powers are enumerated. Most "implied powers" theories tend to fall apart very easily. In other words, these VP "powers" were basically invented out of thin air. The real question is, why?
As a matter of federal law, the Constitution is very clear. I cannot waiver from this reality. The VP has his role. Anything else is contrary to the Constitution. If the US wants to give the VP more power, then an Amendment to the Constitution needs to be passed and ratified. What's interesting is that Trump pretty much used what appears to be Deep State tactics of strengthening the involvement and power of the VP, by getting Pence involved as he did with Space Force.
I bolded that point to draw attention to the argumentative rationale used, but as I continued to explain, that rationale is nonetheless incorrect and a twisting of what the Constitutional actually says, in the context of enumerated powers. The Constitution is silent on many specific things. Silence doesn't authorize. Enumeration authorizes. This isn't even a case of theoretical implied powers. Nowhere in the Constitution is it ever implied that the VP can or should do anything more than what the Constitution plainly dictates. Katzenbach, like Sims, was wrong. Same reason why Calhoun was wrong about "secession" (rather, unilateral withdrawal) being a Constitutional right. Same reason why Taney was wrong on Dred Scott, why SCOTUS was wrong about Roe v Wade et al. The all base their claims on arguments to silence. Not only is this logically fallacious reasoning, it's not supported by basic principles of constituonal law.
Informing the VP about what's going on? Sure. Asking for advice from the VP? Absolutely. Washington eventually figured that out and brought Adams into the mix to help with disputes betwen Hamilton and Jefferson. But actual authority in anything but what the Constitution explicitly grants him? Nope.
What concerns me is the gross violation of the law, of the Constitution, in the allowance of the VP role to be expanded far beyond what was ever imagined, desired or proscribed by law. Granted, this is a symptom of 2 bigger issues: the immense, illegal growth of the federal government (executive branch in particular) and the unauthorized delegation away of enumerated powers and responsibilities. Of course, all of this is the direct result of the real cancer, one of the mind, the twisting of the law to fit an agenda rather than going through the legal legislative and/or diplomatic process.