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.