Talk:Vice President of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Substantive issues

Which branch of Government?

Which branch of Government does the office of the Vice President actually belong to? Some people say Executive, some people say Legislative, some people say neither and some people say both. Which is it?

An adjunct to this issue is the question whether the President can remove the Vice President. Does the Vice President serve at the President's pleasure? What does the President hve to do to effectuate the removal of the Vice President? Is it even possible? Is the answer to this question influenced by whether the Vice President is an elected official? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.2.26.161 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Around the time of Senator Biden's closing comments during the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday evening, Oct 2, 2008, the Wikipedia entry for the Vice President of the United States initially reflected that the Vice President is part of the legislative branch. However, after revisiting the VPOTUS page on Wikipedia, there was a change that then read the Vice President is part of the executive branch. Did anyone else notice this change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.126.112 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addded verbiage and sources that should answer this issue. SeanNovack (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As Vice-President, he is in the executive branch while President of the Senate, he is in the legislative branch. The VP is elected so he would have to request impeachment proceding to take place in Congress to remove him. Spshu (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Office of the Vice President as a Branch of the US Government

On June 21, 2007, it was reported that Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted that the Office of the Vice President is not an exclusive part of the executive branch of the US government (the Vice President of the U.S. Senate), and thus is not bound by presidential orders governing the protection of classified information. The White House has confirmed that Executive Orders governing the protection of classified information exclude both the President and Vice President.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/cheney-power-gr.html

It appears that based on how it complied with instructions, directives and requests relating to information, that the Vice President's office began to assert this view as early as 2003.

Current Trends and Growth of the VPOTUS

Are there any experts out there on the history, especially recent history of the power of the office? My impression has been that the Vice-Presidency has grown very much in the past fifty years and while power of the office changes with each administration, the trend towards an increased role is very strong. The Clinton and Bush II presidencies being the most visible examples. I don't know much about this subject; but I think this should be discussed more clearly in the Modern Office section and linked to better in the growth of the office section. On a side-note; how should the VP residence be discussed? The VP lived in his own private residence until 1973 and moreless permanently resides in Number One Observatory Circle. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/vpresidence.html --Ampersand 11:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

At one point the VP was chair of the NASA board (by law), has been a member of the National Security Council by law, and a member/deputy chair of the Cabinet (by recent tradition - given his sucessor status). Spshu (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the maximum time someone could be President after being Vice-President?

The Vice President of the United States article says the maximum time a person can serve as President is 10 years (2 years because of succession plus two 4 year terms). Yet, wouldn't the following situation also be legally possible. (I got this idea from thinking of how Ronald Regan offered the Vice Presidency to Gerald Ford.) The President resigns from office with 18 months left thus the Vice President serves as President for 18 months. The former Vice President runs for and wins the Presidency and serves the entire 4 year (total time in office 5.5 years). The President loses his re-election bid.

After 4 years the next candidate for President asks the former President (served 5.5 years) to be his running mate. He agrees and they win. This President dies in office with 18 months left on his term. The Vice President again becomes President and serves another 18 months (now a total of 7 years as President). Since the two 18 months periods are both under the 2 years requirement ("Any period of service in the office of president, having succeeded from the vice presidency, counts as one term if it is for two years or more"), they don't count as terms for the purpose of the amendment. He decides to run again and he wins. This results him being President for a total of 11 years (not the stated maximum of 10 years).

Taking this concept a step further, it might be possible to even break the 11 years previously discussed. If after serving the second 18 month period as President, he decides to not stand for re-election (or he loses). Later another candidate has him as his running mate, they win, the President dies in office with 18 months remaining, so the total time would be 8.5 years in office. If he stood for re-election and won his total time in office would be 12.5 years. This cycle could continue since there is no stated limit of time simply a statement of two terms and less than two years of the previous President's term (with no limit on the number of times this can occur).

I agree this is won't happen in the real world, but the article states the maximum is 10 years. The maximum is 10 years from a practical perspective (12 years in the case of what Ronald Regan offered Gerald Ford (2+4 + 2+4)). The actual maximum, though, is unlimited because the stated maximum is not in years but in terms (and what constitutes a term when a Vice President becomes President).

Shouldn't the article present the maximum as "unlimited" because of this oversight, but state a practical limit of 12 years minus 2 days (maximum time less than 2 years * 2 plus two 4 year terms)?

--Bmoshier 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmoshier (talk • contribs) 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can a two term President later become Vice President?

After reviewing the VP criteria and the Constitution (below) on Presidential term limits it appears that John Kerry could select Bill Clinton as VP and if something happened to Kerry, Clinton could serve out the term as President? Does anyone know if this could really occur legally?

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Note that the Constitution bans anyone from being elected president more than twice; it does not prevent them being appointed president. I can't think of any examples of an ex-president subsequently serving as a VP, though. -- ChrisO 00:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

None happened, though Reagan did strongly consider Ford as a running mate, though it would not have invoked the rule. I thought that to be eligible for Vice-President you have to be eligible for President - or is it just the case of the same requirements being used rather than absolute wording? Timrollpickering 19:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to United States presidential line of succession, "3 USC 19(e) specifies that even the acting President must meet the Constitutional requirements for the office of President". So even if a two-term POTUS became Vice President, he could not be acting president under Amendment 25. Thus, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be first in line, if the President were incapacitated or killed. - Plutor 18:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Amendment XII states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." - Luke stebbing 10:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the amendment says "no person shall be elected president more than twice", not "no person may be president" or "no person may serve as president". so its not clear that this is constitutes eligibility to hold the office in respect to the 3 USC 19 restriction above.

Other times their primary role seems to be meeting heads of state or attending state funerals in other countries, at times when the administration wishes to demonstrate concern or support without having to actually send the President himself to do so.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that this is a typical function of the ceremonial head of state in non-Presidential systems. Joestynes

I think that might be a bad idea, if it compares the two roles. The role of VP is light years from the role of a ceremonial head of state in parliamentary systems. In particular, the VP now enjoys a substantial amount of power in shaping national policy and defending the current administration. Revolver 22:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The VP enjoys exactly as much power as the President lets him have.

Curious Reader: Though this doesn't answers the Can or Can't question, my observation is, why would a former President want to serve as Vice President? After all, once you've been the Top Bannana (President), why would ya wanna be Second Bannana? 22 October 2005.

Yes, Bill Clinton could be VP

Why? No wheres in the Constitution does it say A person whose has been elected President twice ,can never be appointed Vice President. Bill Clinton could be VP and should the President he serves (die, resign or be removed from Office), Clinton could become President & complete the term. What he can't do (22nd Amendment) is run for a Presidential term. 24 October 2005

No. The Twelfth Amendment states "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Richard75 00:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But the 22nd amendment says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," it doesn't say "no person shall be President more than twice," so I don't think it's so clear that this constitutes an ineligbility to hold the office of President under the 12th amendment. Ddye 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The 22nd Amendment also says "and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." So, in theory, President Clinton could be Vice-President, and then succeed to President, but could not serve longer than exactly two years.mweng 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NO! Bill Clinton cannot be VP! He has held the office of president twice. He cannot run for VP; he cannot be appointed VP.

The 22nd Amendment only says that someone cannot be elected to the presidency under certain circumstances. It says nothing about whether someone can serve as president. So under the 22nd Amendment, Clinton is clearly eligible to succeed as president if he happens to be in the line of succession somewhere (Speaker, President pro tempore, Cabinet member). He couldn't run for reelection, but he could serve out the remainder of the term. The issue of whether he could be VP is dealt with by the 12th Amendment. That says that someone can't be Vice President if they're not eligible to be President. But Clinton is only ineligible to be elected president, not to be president, as we've seen. So he is probably eligible to be elected (or appointed) as Vice President, although the issue has not actually come up. Clear? john k 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NO! He is not eligible to be President, ELECTED OR APPOINTED, because he has served two full terms. If one is not eligible to be elected President, one is not eligible to ACT AS or be APPOINTED AS President (or Vice President for that matter). The only way one can serve more than eight years is to succeed to the presidency FOR TWO YRS OR LESS, then get elected for two terms (consescutively or nonconsecutively). 75.179.5.126 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Clear?

It's clear that you think so but not at all clear that would be the decision of the appropriate decision makers. "If one is not eligible to be elected President, one is not eligible to ACT AS or be APPOINTED AS President." You're pulling a rabbit out of the hat as my old Con Law professor would have said. SHJohnson 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph dealing with this issue in the Eligibility section so that it's neutral. Unless the Constitution is amended regarding this issue, or the Supreme Court similarly rules, this issue should referenced neutrally. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Springboard to Presidency

I replaced

Since 1960, only three presidential elections, the 1980 election, 1996 election, and 2004 election, did not feature an incumbent or former Vice President as a major candidate. The election of 1968, provided the option of two men who had served as Vice President, Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.

with

Of the 13 presidential elections from 1956 to 2004, 9 featured the incumbent President; the other 4 (1960, 1968, 1988, 2000) all featured the incumbent Vice President. Former Vice Presidents also ran, in 1984 (Walter Mondale), and in 1968 (Richard Nixon, against the incumbent Hubert Humphrey).

because the remaining cases (1964, 1972, 1976, 1992) were former Vice-Presidents running as incumbent Presidents. Their previous lesser job was not a feature of their campaigns. Joestynes 06:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sitting vice Presidents elected President

quote: Four sitting Vice Presidents were elected President John Adams (1789–1797) was elected President in 1796. Thomas Jefferson (1797–1801) was elected President in 1800. Martin Van Buren (1833–1837) was elected President in 1836. George H. W. Bush (1981–1989) was elected President in 1988.

Isn't Harry S. Truman missing here? Or am I just missing something? I did not edit the page because this seems to be a too big error to be true. 82.181.69.69 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)AM

You're overlooking that he succeeded in office, a different thing from being elected in his own right at the outset like the above four. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidential Candidacy

"It is common for the Vice Presidential candidate to come from a different region of the country than the President or appeal to a slightly different ideological wing of the party." While not explicit, shouldn't there be a section which says explicitly that the VP cannot come from the same state as the president? I believe that's stated here:

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves"

Which would preclude, for instance, the elector from texas voting for two people who inhabit texas? (for instance, if both Bush and Cheney legally inhabited Texas..)

--Daniel Tate 23:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to add such a sentence, since it is a valid point you make. In your example, the electors could not vote for two Texans. Residency requirements are so easy these days that it is not hard to change your state (as Cheney did in 2000). At the time of the constitution (and the 12th Amendment) such relocation was not as easy, and more people had a stronger allegiance to their state than to the newly formed nation. NoSeptember^- 23:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Specific Vice Presidents

Aaron Burr

What happened to the Aaron Burr page? It appears on "recent changes," with a note of what was added, but any attempt to get to it produces "Describe the new page here." 15 Feb 2002 Vicki Rosenzweig

Can Cheney make history?

Just something I've noticed. If Dick Cheney were to complete his second term of office (Jan.20, 2009), he & Al Gore would becomes the first Back to Back (45th & 46th) Vice Presidents of the USA to have served two complete terms. 21 October 2005

Terms in Office as Vice President

Question: How many times can a person be elected to the office of Vice President? Amendments 12, 22, and 25 don't seem to limit that time of service or number of terms. So, could Al Gore or Dick Cheney run for a third term as Vice President? H.R.Clinton and Gore versus Giuliani and Cheney? Considering Obama asking Gore as his running mate he could somewhat compensate for his lack of executive experience. Struwwwel 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Who receives a presidential resignation?

Nixon's letter of resignation was addressed to Secretary of State Kissinger. I cannot find anything in Amendment XXIV stating to whom the resignation is to be communicated. Is there a statute covering this? Peter Chastain (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 20 of the United States Code says that:

"The only evidence of a refusal to accept, or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaring the same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the Secretary of State."

Link here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000020----000-.html Andy120290 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Article issues

25th Ammendment

The section(while providing useful information) didn't seem well written. I made a few changes to the flow. I think they make it more readable. The content is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.200.252 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Birch Bayh's book "One Heartbeat Away" (in regards to the 25th Amendment) would be an excellent book to mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.235.228 (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Dick" Cheney?

Does anyone else agree that the article's introduction should say "Richard" instead of "Dick?" I think that in formal matters it's always best to refer to individuals by their given names. --Impaciente 00:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always found that in Wikipedia matters it's best to use the most commonly-used name. Cheney goes by "Dick", and is best known as "Dick Cheney". 71.203.209.0 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chart help

I don't know how to edit charts. Can someone mention that Cheney served as Acting President during Bush's colonoscopy? user:J.J.

Images

A few days ago this page had about the same number of images it does now, but the image selection and placement seemed rather happenstance. The images did not fit the part of the text they were in very well, and the images were mostly dull ones of more obscure VP's. So I spent a lot of time, most of an evening, selecting and placing images to go with the narrative, and choosing more photogenic images where available.

So that's why I reverted an edit that removed most of the images in one blow. If you'd like to move things around more, swap for better images, even prune a couple, be bold. But please have a little more care before stripping away so many images. Jonathunder 05:37, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

The images don't add much value to the page and, on higher resolutions, are way overdone. While sometimes you may spend a lot of time formatting an article here, you have to sometimes admit that the format doesn't necessarily work. I'll remove half of them or so, then there isnt as much of an overload. Will also re-add the seal. --tomf688^(talk) 12:17, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know how to work with images this well, but can somebody fix the layout of those two huge images across the top of the article? Thank you! --ParkerHiggins 08:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the image of the Vice Presidential Seal? It was great as part of the article. GoodDay 17:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

They were moved to here. Heraldry has its place, but it needn't be so prominent. --Mark_Adler (t·c) 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

The article looks even better, great job. GoodDay 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In the timeline, the 15th vice president's name is misspelled as "Hammibal" instead of "Hannibal" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.51.243 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oaths

The official executive branch government oath was godless until the Ironclad Test oath was passed on July 12 1862. We must always insist that people who claim any V.P. appended 'so help me God' to the oath of office before 1862 have contemporaneous eyewitness evidence to back that claim, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated opinion, not a historical fact. The claim that all Vice Presidents appended 'so help me God' to their oath of office should be removed from this article as it is an unsubstantiated assertion that is very likely false.

Related templates

Vice Presidential trivia lists

This article has a good section on trivia, but there are about 25 Presidential trivia lists (articles), and some on Vice Presidents would be useful. In particular a VP mirror list to the List of U.S. Presidents by time in office article would be very useful. (At the bottom of that article you can find the list of the about 25 other Pres. trivia articles, some worthy of being mirrored for the VP also) NoSeptember ^(talk) 22:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other Presidential lists I'd like to see mirrored for the VP are: List of unsuccessful U.S. Presidential candidates who received at least one electoral vote, List of U.S. Presidents by place of birth, List of U.S. Presidents by date of death. Anyone who would like to be bold in creating these, please do. NoSeptember ^(talk) 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of composing this VP trivia page: User:NoSeptember/List of U.S. Vice Presidents by time in office NoSeptember ^(talk) 13:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other

It appears that there has never been a band called "The Vice Presidents of the United States of America".

Never elected to office

Under "Vice Presidential Facts," Gerald Ford is listed as the only VP never elected to office. Surely Nelson Rockefeller belongs there too? I'm not adding it myself because it seems so glaringly obvious an omission that I feel like I'm missing something. --Jfruh 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

POV of opening line?

Is it really necessary to compare this job to a bucket of pee in the opening line? The guy who holds this job can usually waltz down across the street to the Oval Office if he pleases, so this seems to be an extremely negative and POV way to begin the article. I'd prefer the lead to be a tight explanation of the role and its position within the federal government. If someone doesn't change this VERY quickly, I will. Harro5 10:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Harro5. It is a very famous quote, but the lead para is not where it belongs. JackofOz 11:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct statement is "a warm bucket of SPIT"

Garner is supposed to have said "warm bucket of piss". However because the statement (particularly in th 1930') was offensive, the more polite "bucket of warm spit" was publicized. GoodDay 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple VP candidates?

In a number of elections in the last twenty-five years or so (or maybe more) a number of third party presidential candidates had different VP candidates on the ballot in different states. I'm not entirely sure why that is, perhaps some sort of ballot access issues. In the unlikely event that such a president were elected, how would the VP be chosen? Examples include several candidates of the Workers World Party, Socialist Workers Party, and Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party who in 1988 evidently had six VPs and Ralph Nader who in 1996 had at least four and in 2004 had three. Esquizombi 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The President and VP are technically elected on completely seperate ballots. In the event that no candidate received a majority of votes for VP (as might happen in the scenario you describe), the US Senate elects one from the top two vote-getters. Ddye 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Second highest?

The article opens with:

Vice President of the United States is the second-highest executive official

Since they formally wield no power while the President is still in office, are they really any higher then the average citizen? I realize they're quite influential, but defining the job this way seems odd and unnecessary. It would be more accurate to just say that their job is to succeed the President, and discuss the other influence separately. --88.111.41.106 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They do formally wield power--they are President of the Senate, can preside there, and can vote and break ties. They are second highest because they are next in line to the highest. Its not a measure of power (although they do have some) its a measure of where they fall in the line of power.mweng 03:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The senate thing is a separate ex officio role, so that doesn't count. The rest is exactly my point. "Second highest" can mean many different things, many of them misleading. I'm removing it. --Dtcdthingy 18:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. The office of the VP is defined in Article I of the Constitution that establishes the legislative branch. The VP has 4 powers, three of which are legislative (presiding over Senate, tiebreaker votes, presiding over the electoral college) and one of which is judicial (presiding over impeachments). He has no executive power so how can he be an executive official? 12.10.223.247 06:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Vice President is an elected official and the Constitution of the United States grants them power in the Executive Branch. I have modivied the lead para to reflect this.SeanNovack (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

12th Amendment

"It is, however, debated whether a former two-term president could be elected Vice President since the 22nd amendment doesn’t limit a president to serving two terms; it only prevents him from being elected to more than two terms. According to one interpretation a two term president could be elected to the vice-presidency and then serve another term in the presidency if the elected president died or was removed from office. The 22nd amendment only forbids election to, not service in, the presidency more than twice. In such a circumstance the two-term president turned vice president would still be elected to the presidency twice."

At the end of the 12th ammendment "but no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States"

Needs to be fixed.

The "constitutionally ineligible" clause refers to citizenship and age. It's conceivable, and constitutionally permissable, for example a former two-term president could become president again via the vice-presidency, or even being speaker of the house, should both the president and vice-president leave office. In either case s/he would not be eliglble to be elected to the office. -- Yellowdesk 03:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes very strange

Footnotes 1 and 2 under the list of VPs looks to have been vandalized.

Fillmore/Tyler -- did they seek the presidency?

Two items under VP facts are questionable:

• John Tyler became President when William Harrison died. Chose not to seek full term.
• Millard Fillmore became President when Zachary Taylor died. Chose not to seek full term.

But

• Chester A. Arthur became President when James Garfield was assassinated. Sought a full term, but was not re-nominated.

My understanding is that Fillmore did seek the Whig nomination in 1852. His bio article reads: "Some northern Whigs remained irreconcilable, refusing to forgive Fillmore for having signed the Fugitive Slave Act. They helped deprive him of the Presidential nomination in 1852", implying that he was at least interested in running.

Tyler's case is more complex: having been a latecomer to Whiggery, he was kicked out of the party soon after his ascension as President; in the 1844 election, he was serious enough about running for re-election that he arranged what he called a "National Democratic Tyler Convention" to nominate him for the office. By summer of that year, though, he had determined that his chances of re-election were negligable and dropped out of the race.

So, I guess the question is how you define "seek a full term." If it entails running in the general election, than neither Tyler nor Fillmore meet the criteria. But if Arthur's attempt to be nominated for president is worthy of mention, then so too is Fillmore's. Tyler's case is odder, but perhaps worthy of note for that very reason. --Jfruh (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Johnson? Didn't he seek the Democratic nomination in 1868? john k 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fillmore & A. Johnson, should be included (seeking major party nomination), Tyler should not (didn't seek major party nomination). GoodDay 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why major party nomination should be the criteria here. Tyler sought to be re-elected, for a time, anyway. The sources seem to think that his "National Democratic Tyler Convention", held in the same city and at the same time as the Democratic Convention, was in fact an attempt to convince the Democrats, who were having a hard time deciding on a nominee, to nominate Tyler. --Jfruh (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tyler didn't seek Whig party nomination because he was run out of the party by infuriated Senators, Congressmen and other Whigs. He was on his own in establishing an electoral base. -- Yellowdesk 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fillmore sought the Presidency in 1856 on the Know-Nothing ticket. He received the electoral votes from Maryland. Since Roosevelt's 1912 campaign is mentioned, so should Fillmore's 1856 campaign be. 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this confusion stems from a mixture of the traditional myth that a candidate did not seek the office but was rather drafted to it, which in practice meant that they weren't always leaving clear signposts that they were seeking a term, and incumbent Presidents sitting above the system a bit so again their names weren't always formally entered in the process - the article on Arthur says "Nevertheless, Arthur was the last incumbent President to submit his name for renomination and fail to obtain it." I seem to recall that Truman and Lyndon Johnson were only write-in candidates in the New Hampshire primaries that ended their hopes of second full terms and (in an era when the convention was still key) they may not have made a firm decision to seek in the first place. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

March 4th & Presidential succession dates

Fixed dates in article, VP terms ended at Noon EST on March 4th. Furthermore upon the death, resignation or removal from office of a President, the VP automatically becomes President. GoodDay 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is now no longer in there but in case anyone wants to put it back in, there doesn't seem to have been any clarity before 1933 and it was an era when no-one cared about this kind of precision. See Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4, 1933 for some of the problems. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Impeachment Trial

It this event ever occurs, the president pro tempore would preside over the Impeachment Trial. GoodDay 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Can someone source that alleged "principle" that would countermand the text of the constitution and prevent the VP from presiding over his own impeachment? It sounds like pure speculation to me. 12.10.223.247 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Vice President could theoretically preside over his own trial, but that wouldn't be "politic". IT would, of course be hillarious.Ericl (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seal of the Vice President

Currently there are two seals shown in the article:

• 
• 

Are they just possible variations of the seal of the Vice president or is one of them not correct? Gugganij 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The second version is shown here. Gugganij 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the photo of George Clinton is correct. :-)

George Clinton photo

I may be wrong, but I don't think the photo of George Clinton is the correct photo. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.0.141.220 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

It's the correct photo. GoodDay 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

United States of Hypocrisy?

Looks like someone's been having too much fun vandalizing. I think I changed it all back to United States of America. Could someone ask for this page to be locked?

How is the VP candidate actually chosen?

The current wiki entry for VP says this:

"Formally, the vice presidential candidate is nominated by the party convention. However, it has long been the custom that the vice presidential candidate has been effectively named by the presidential nominee."

How much of a role does the presidential candidate have to select the VP candidate? For example, the RNC supposedly asked Cheney to recommend a VP candidate, but after some exploration he came back and offered himself as the VP candidate. How much of a role did Clinton have in the selection of Al Gore? Can the presidential candidate have the sole discretion of the VP choice? What has happened historically?

At the Democratic and Republican conventions, is it the case that the VP candidates have already been chosen before the conventions even start?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.219.48 (talk) June 20, 2007

The first president to demand that he get a specific running mate was Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Prior to that, the political bosses at the convention usually proposed a nominee. Sometimes the convention delegates revolted and chose the nominee who the bosses didn't want like Calvin Coolidge in 1920. Since 1948, the presidential candidate chooses his running mate and the delegates ratify the choice. Since 1992, it has always been by voice vote.Ericl (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Naval Duties?

Anyone have any references to back the statement on the idea that the VP is in command of the Navy?

Nope, because the VP isn't in command of the Navy, the President is (the President is commander-in-chief of the US Armed forces). GoodDay 15:03, 22 July 2007

The Vice President is the head of NASA, perhaps that's where you are getting the confusion.SeanNovack (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we not think that we should have the say in who is our vice president? Does it not state that he should be voted in and that who ever comes in 2nd should be our vice president? Does anyone have an answer? -9876UTC)

This was the original setup, it didn't work because the Vice President was representing his own interests as opposed to those of the President and there ended up being too much conflict. Look up the 12th Amendment to the ConstitutionSeanNovack (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Split of section

I am suggesting the split of the List as it is with President Pro Tempore of the Senate and President of the United States.--Southern Texas 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support – I support the suggested split.--Southern Texas 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe – I think the information in the marked "VPs of the USA" section should remain, though support splitting the "List of VPs" section to a separate article, perhaps with a copy of the prior section. Should the split proposal notice be moved down a section? —Adavidb 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I support this split Gang14 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Its been over 20 days since the suggestion and I have split the section into the new article List of Vice Presidents of the United States.--Southern Texas 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

VPOTUS

The Safire article cited in the President page also mentions the use of the term "VPOTUS." However, it also mentions that the term only came into usage during the Clinton presidency. I think it warrants adding, but if anyone feels differently, feel free to remove it. --Kevin W. 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the vice president rules!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.155.207 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Generic references to vice president

When the term "vice president" is used generically in the article, sometimes we capitalise the v and the p, sometimes not. Sometimes both forms appear in the one paragraph, e.g.

• The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Thus, the vice president must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and have been a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years. However, unlike the two-election limit imposed on the Presidency by the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution, there is no restriction on the number of terms a person can serve as Vice President (as long as he has never been president for 6 or more years).

I think the standard is to use lower case v and p in these cases, but the minimum requirement is consistency. Any thoughts? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Titles section of the style manual covers this some. It's not always a matter of consistency, but how the title is used. I believe when referring to the office itself, the term is also capitalized. —Adavidb 11:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can a President Fire the Vice President?

This article talks about the vice president dying or the president dying and so on but doent mention the scenario of the person being fired. Can a president fire his/her VP? For example if Hillary is the VP of Obama and after the first year Obama is having a hard time with Hillary and her husband running the show or stepping on his toes, can he fire her? Does she have to be impeached by congress only? Does Obama have to wait until the first term is over to get rid of her? Im just using Obama/Clinton as an example sorry if I offended anyone you can reverse the roles if you like. Thank you for your answer.--154.20.106.36 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the VP is an elected position, not an appointed position, so the president does not have the power to fire the VP. The only way he/she can be removed is through an impeachment process. However, the president could request a resignation, or the president could strip the VP of all responsibility/power in the executive branch, making him/her basically useless (except for the powers given to him/her in the Senate). I'll look into adding something about that in the article. --CapitalR (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And the short answer to the question: No. Although on the same party ticket, the VP has the same electoral status as the President. Anyone can ask for the VP's resignation. It's up to the VP. The quote on the basic, constitutional duties: John Nance Garner once described the office of the vice presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss." All other duties besides the President of the Senate, are a bit like the duties of a cabinet member in a paliamentary system: up to the discretion of the prime minister/president.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your inputs. My own feeling was that the President could make the VP powerless and he/she would only have Senate duties until the term ended. This would be public humiliation for the VP and he/she would most likely resign. I just wanted to know how do you remove a VP that doesnt want to resign? Is it only by the impeachment of the Congress? Can the person be impeached even without cause? I mean many positions in government can be terminated by a superior without cause is this one different? The President routinely fires people around him if he chooses (like Rumsfeld) and since the VP is meant as his assistant can he/she be fired? I think it is good if the article mentioned this. Thanks again.--70.71.13.87 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Related question: Is the VP entitled to attend classified briefings? (Or any other access to information beyond what any Senator would have.) Flatterworld (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a statutory member of the United States National Security Council, the VP is entitled to attend meetings of that body. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have reference to we are suppose to vote on the vice president. It has been stated that we have been doing this wrong for years. And why would we want our president to pick the vice president shouldn't this be up to us? We need to vote on both so that we are represented by our decisions. Look at our presidents this year do we not want them to have strong running mate this year we really need the right people to be our commander and our vice president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.249.131.188 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

About the nearest to a direct vote for the Veep is the New Hampshire Vice Presidential primary, a historic hangover that no-one takes seriously. In theory any state/party can change its election laws and have Veep primaries that bind the delegates (how this would fit in with delegate selection I'm not sure) but if the candidates all defer to the choice of the Presidential nominee then it would take time to become meaningful. States could more meaningfully have a separate vote for Vice President, which in some close seats could see a split ticket carrying the state, but again as the position has developed politically as a spare for the President voters might reasonably want that prioritised over the right to choose separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

to the above question. The answer is NO. The president cannot fire the Vice President. Many presidents have WANTED to, however.Ericl (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex 2-term Presidents eligible as Veeps

Whether this is possible is going backwards and forwards and feels suspiciously like a lot of people are personally interpreting the constitution to get a definitive answer. If this goes on we'll need edit protection but for the moment can people a) provide a reliable source on these statements; and b) use the talk page to explain their reasoning, not just the edit summaries? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility

The line "Additionally, every vice president as of 2008 except John Adams, Chester A. Arthur, Henry A. Wallace and Garret Hobart has served as a Congressman, Senator, or Governor." shouldn't be in the eligibility section. While it may be true, it has nothing to do with eligibility. 70.188.139.30 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

True. I've moved it to the "Records" section, where it fits better. —KCinDC (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"In charge" of the Senate

I think it is obvious that the Vice President is "in-charge" of the Senate. The constitution clearly states this fact. Candidate Sarah Palin agrees with this fact. This is a clear cut case of credentials versus consensus. Until Cheney/Biden/Palin state something to the contrary, Wikipedia must include this in the article. --209.6.21.168 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to bury this issue instead of discussing it? I hate to sound like an élite, but there are clear credentials of this fact. A United States governor, running for this office has described this role as such. The word "preside" is ambiguous. It ignores many of the important roles the Vice President plays in the Senate. As president of the Senate, the VP has the ability to work with senators and craft policies. The phrase ought to stand.

--209.6.21.168 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-election edit war syndrome

I've put a one day protection on the article because it's one of several being hit by the latest round of Post-election edit war syndrome. (I also recommend people take a look at that page as the edit war problem has occurred many times with elections around the world.) The US is one of the better defined countries with an exact day and time set down for when Cheney's term expires and Biden will succeed him. But that's not until January 20th. Please can people stop changing the article to list Biden as Veep from right now - if necessary discuss here what should be displayed. If revert wars continue then longer and higher protection may be necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me, Henry Wallace, a former vice president, won his party's nomination for president in 1948 and got over a million votes, the best fourth place finish since 1860. I put that in the records section along underneith Walter Mondale's name.and someone decided it wasn't true and removed it. I put it back because it's true. Ericl (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Presidential succession a choice?

". . .becoming the new President of the United States upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president."

In the above-mentioned scenarios, doesn't the Vice President succeed the President only if they choose to? If you watch Ford's inauguration, you'll notice that he actually has to accept the position before being declared President. The current line in the article indicates that a Vice President would still be recorded as a President even if they declined to take the oath. Is that actually the case, and if so, do we have a citation for this? -- James26 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The 25th Amendment just says "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Nothing about a choice -- the choice occurred when the person decided to accept the position of vice president. And I don't think the oath is required; that's just a ceremonial thing. —KCinDC (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a little trickier than that, the oath isn't just ceremonial. Becoming vice-President is automatic, however, to exercise the powers of the vice-Presidency, the oath is required. That's not completely correct when dealing with taking office due to the death of the President, because some actions will be needed. During inauguations, there is some time between when the prior administration's term in office ended, and when the next administration begins. It's not a long period, and we aren't without a President and vice-President during that period, but they can't use their powers until they have taken the oath. Should someone decline to take the oath, that would get sticky, it's never come up. If you had a VP that wanted to think about it for a couple days, Congress would probably involve themselves.--RLent (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Apparently the only choice involved, should the VP not want the job, would be for them to resign from the presidency following their succession. James26 (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Article reorganization proposal

I humbly submit the following outline for a more organized article that flows better:

• Intro
• Roles and duties of the Veep
  • Article I role: Pres of the Senate; Tie-breaking vote
    • Justification for this role: good reads here and here.
  • Twelfth Amd role: Preside over count of Electoral College vote
    • Superceded Article II role of same.
  • Twenty-fifth Amd role: Succession to Presidency; Determination of Pres disability
    • Superceded Article II role of same.
  • Extraconstitutional roles
    • Formal duties: Member of National Security Council, etc. (this category for roles given by law)
    • Informal duties: For those "weddings and funerals" tasks the Pres informally delegates
• Selection of VP
  • Eligibility
    • Residency
  • Nomination
  • Election
    • Vacancy appointment
  • Oath
  • Tenure
  • Salary and residence
  • Removal
• History
  • Original roles and reform
  • Growth of Office
  • Contemporary stepping stone to Presidency
• Former VPs
• Records, References, Notes, etc...

Let me know what you think. Cheers! Foofighter20x (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and did the re-org. I don't have the time right now to go over the article and give it a single tone of voice or better flow. Also, I hope to add a brief Origins section explaining how the office resulted from negotiations concerning how to elect the President, and how the Veep became a useful tool for the Senate within the constitutional drafting debates. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson

Adlai E. Stevenson I is in this article in the list of "Fourteen Vice Presidents who never ran for President." Unfortunately, the Adlai Stevenson article in the Wiki talks about his two failed Presidential bids. Whoops. 72.177.34.13 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That was his grandson. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalizations

I've tried to fix some of them, but there's alot of inconsistancy in this article using President & president. Which is it gonna be folks? GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Howabout this trivia (can we add?), Gore and Cheney are the first back-to-back 2-full term Vice Presidents (both served 8yrs). GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice the heading of the section, but trivia is discouraged. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, though, don't take me as saying it's prohibited. If you can find a good way to weave it into the article, go for it! Foofighter20x (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

We have a contradiction regarding post-office pensions. Under the section on salary, it states:

The Vice President does not automatically receive a pension based on that office, but instead receives the same pension as other members of Congress based on his position as president of the Senate.[20] The Vice President must serve a minimum of five years to qualify for a pension.[21]

However, it also states on the section on former veeps:

Former Vice Presidents are entitled to lifetime pensions, but unlike former Presidents they are not entitled to Secret Service personal protection.[22] However, former Vice Presidents unofficially receive Secret Service protection for up to six months after leaving office.[23]

Both are reliably sourced, but it would appear that one of them is erroneous. Any ideas? SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

-- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

January 6, 1969 counting & presentation of Electoral College votes

I assume that in VP Humphrey's absence, the president pro-tempore presided over this event. Perhaps this should be mentioned -directly- in the content? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is quite possible that some other senator was presiding; the President pro tem rarely actually presides; it's usually just a junior senator from the majority party presiding. We would need a specific source as to who was presiding in this particular instance. john k (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Which senator? that could be difficult to find. By the way, do we know who read the EC returns in February 1789? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/docs/desch25.pdf

Specific source, Deschler's Precedents (authored by the longtime Parliamentarian of the House). I'm not surprised that the PPT would do it himself instead of delegating it to another senator on such an occasion:[[1]]JTRH (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

90004

The current visit to Russia by Joe Biden saw the V.P. arrive in an official airplane similar to Air Force 1 with the number 90004 on its tail. Which airplane is this? __meco (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

His Superfluous Excellency

My sources say that the man who first said this never held the office. Instead he was a postal worker or something.

http://books.google.com/books?id=YOWX0jLPbkwC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq="His+Superfluous+Excellency"&source=bl&ots=4KO_UIXrmZ&sig=yjNe5e5MMRgzaP25uUnf-yejr8M&hl=en&ei=X6SSTa3GGY7ksQO1mdzCBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q="His Superfluous Excellency"&f=false

Hcobb (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New Name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Vice President of the United States → Vice-President of the United States – This title of this article is mis-spelled. The "Vice President" is the "president of vice." The "Vice-President" is the "assistant" president (or "substitute" president). Cf. "vice-roy," "vice-admiral," etc. Vlastimil Svoboda (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I checked Dictionary.com and that excepted both entries and also the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica used vice president of the Unitied Sates of American and not vice-president. [[2]]. It seems that vice president means assistant to the president and not the president of vice.--76.69.168.124 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Hate to break it to you, but that's how the Constitution spells it; though I sympathize in personally preferring the hyphenated spelling. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – I like hyphens at least as much as the next guy, but this ship has sailed without one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For better or for worse, "Vice President" is the common usage and does not cause any ambiguity. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. In US English, "Vice President" is not hyphenated. Neither is "mis-spelled." :) JTRH (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Or "vice-roy". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TIES. An article on an American topic should use the most commonly used spelling in American English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is mentioned that Al Gore was an advisor to Clinton on foreign policy matters but perhaps it would be worth mentioning how the role of the Vice President in foreign policy matters has evolved since the Clinton administration. For example, Cheney's self insertion into the NSC.Tseay (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vice President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031013/13cheney.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

de facto????

The infobox says the vice president is a member of the senate, de facto.

In my opinion, that's an aggressively mistaken use of the phrase de facto, which means "in practice, even if not formally". In practice, the vice president is not a member of the senate. I don't think he's formally a member of the senate either (he's formally president of the senate, but it's not clear that the president has to be a member), but he's closer to being formally a member of the senate than he is to being a member of the senate in practice.

Probably, the line should just be removed, but if kept, de facto could be maybe replaced with pro forma (or pro forma, ex officio). --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The Veep being a pro forma member of the Senate would mean the Senate is courteously allowing the officeholder to be involved. That isn't the case. The Veep is a member of the Senate in fact (i.e., de facto) because the Constitution expressly names the Veep as the President of the Senate and prescribes the Veep's role therein. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what de facto means. As Wiktionary says, it means [i]n practice; in actual use or existence, regardless of official or legal status.

The VP is president of the senate, but almost never exercises that role, so de facto he's not even president of the senate. The de facto president of the senate would be whoever is presiding at a given time (usually not the president pro tempore, who, as the article explains, usually delegates that role).

Note that, even when he acts as president of the senate (that's pretty much exclusively on ceremonial occasions like the State of the Union address, or counting electoral votes), being president doesn't necessarily automatically mean you're acting as a member. --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You're using the incorrect definition. De facto as used there is an adjective, not an adverb. It is modifying "member of the Senate", not "is". Also, I majored in Government/Political Science in undergrad. You? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a language issue, not a politics issue. The adjectival definition in Wikipedia Wiktionary is essentially the same: In fact or in practice; in actual use or existence, regardless of official or legal status. (Often opposed to de jure.) The constitution names the vice president as president of the senate; that makes him the de jure president of the senate, not de facto. --Trovatore (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because you failed to make the distinction between an adverb and an adjective doesn't make you correct, nor does your counterargument even begin to address the deficiency your mistake brought to bear. If you really have that big a beef with the language, change it to something that isn't either option, since the one you are offering is lexicographically wrong. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The dictionary definition of the adjective is the same. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your understanding of "same" is, but "in practice" and "in fact or in practice" don't mean the same thing. Factually, the Veep is a member with a highly restricted set of membership privileges. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Vice President is not a member of the Senate. There is no ambiguity on that point. The President of the Senate is not a Senator. I removed the phrasing from the infobox, because anything stating that he's a member (even "de facto" or "de jure") is inaccurate. 67.197.169.140 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If he wasn't a constitutionally designated member of the Senate, he wouldn't have the power to break ties or preside. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The VP is the constitutionally designated President of the Senate with the specific power to break ties. That does not make him a "member". 67.197.169.140 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. It makes him a member, but with a highly restricted set of membership privileges--i.e., he does get to vote on whether to pass or reject legislation, but just only to break ties. You can't be entitled to vote at all unless you are a member on some fundamental level. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you can come up with an example of a non-member being a presiding office in cases of the Senate conducting its regular business? No? Didn't think so. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're correct. -Trovatore (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the Vice President presiding over the Senate makes him a member any more than the Chief Justice of the United States is for being designated to preside over presidential impeachments. bd2412 T 01:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. The VP is not a de-facto senator, not a de-jure senator, just not a senator at all. The fix is simply to remove the entry, as 67.197.169.140. I suppose another section could be added to the infobox, titled "Ex officio roles" or some such, and "President of the Senate" could be listed there. --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I would support that resolution. bd2412 T 02:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I maintain there's a distinction to be made between being not being a member and being a limited member with a narrower set of membership privileges. Alas, I've worked with BD plenty before and trust his judgment, and thus therefore concede the point. Ex officio is a description I can get behind. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

He's not a "member". He's not a "limited member" or an "ex officio member" or a "de facto member" or a "de jure member". The President of the Senate is not a member of the Senate. This is not a matter of "consensus" or "judgment." It's a matter of fact for which there is a single, correct answer. 67.197.169.140 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for that, we do have to get the template changed. The template isn't protected, but it would seem prudent to discuss first. I think it's a generally good addition (it could be used, for example, to say that the US president is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces). Usually you wouldn't expect it to be used in the same infobox as the "member" one, I think, but it's not impossible, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vice President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061024192833/http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110202214223/http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq to http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Needs to be updated as Pence has been sworn in. 114.74.68.169 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly is this update needed? Drdpw (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vice President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018135939/http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/johnadams to http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/johnadams

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2