Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyegrad
I disagree that what happened to Adams was a demonstration that the VP was not seen as a legislative role by the Founders. I would argue that Adams misinterpreted the legislative role of the position (as would Palin's description). That is why I focused more on Jefferon's rather than Adams' approach as Jefferson seems to have defined the legislative role (which he stated in his VP inaugural address was the most important role of the position according to the Constitution--see link I provided earlier) in a much more agreeable fashion to the Founders.
Out of curiosity as merely an intellectual exercise, what do you think would have happened if Adams had not backed down? With no Marbury v. Madison to justy the Court's involvement yet, how would the matter have been decided? Would the Court have asserted its judicial review power in this matter or would have someone/something else have to settle the disagreement?
|
By the time Jefferson became Adams' Veep the two had become embroiled in the Federalist argument and the issue of a possible war. Adams was seen by Jefferson as wanting a stronger central govt, and a war with France, positions he oppossed. Adams maintained that he had no intentions of a war with France and was a not a member of the Federalist camp. It's hard to imagine how a government could long last if the President and the VP were at such odds. Given the way the veep was decided then, the rise of the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans, and the lack of precedents, legal, political and historical, I think you're reaching to draw a comparison to the modern Veep situation and thus justify Palin's comments on the office. Frankly, nothing she's said gives any indication that she could make an argument as deep as the one you've presented. wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean.