Corrections

As disclosed, I only caught about 30% of the VP debate on radio.

Apparently, the frequent downward glances by the candidates was innocent -- they had blank scratch paper only. So the joke we started class with was not literally true. See here. (Still pretty funny IMO.)

On the VP question, I maintain that Sarah Palin's answer was a conceptual trainwreck. Having seen the transcript, however, I have to admit that Biden's answer was at the very least a verbal trainwreck.

The Vice President in mentioned in both Article I and Article II of the US Constitution. That does not mean the VP is simultaneously considered to be "in" both the legislative and executive branches, despite Dick Cheney’s bald assertion of uncheckable power to that effect. The title "Vice President" and method of election or impeachment clearly place the VP in the executive branch.

In practice, the VP had a very small role in either branch for most of US history. Recent VPs have been major advisers to the President, diplomats on his behalf, and lobbyists to the US Congress on behalf of the President's legislative priorities, which build a pattern of the VP acting as a liaison from the executive toward the legislative, as part of the executive branch.

Article I, Section III of the United States Constitution says:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The tiebreaking vote isn't considered a major power. No VP since the Reconstruction era has cast more than 10 votes in the Senate. (Senate.gov)

The Senate President pro tempore provision clearly anticipates the absence of the VP from daily deliberations in the Senate chamber. VPs have rarely presided over or worked worked live in the Senate chamber, although recent ones have lobbied the Congress behind the scenes, trying to persuade legislators to vote in accordance with the President's agenda. In practice, the Presdient pro tempore (the pro tem) doesn't have the most authority in the Senate, although he is next in line to the Presidency after the Speaker of the House. The Senate Majority Leader is the most important Senator from a legislative point of view. The Senate has a long institutional history of valuing the equality of its members, and is unlikely to accept an expansive view of the VP's legislative role and Constitutional powers even if that VP was of the same party.

Palin says:

"No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are."

No, you are not expected to take that position very seriously also. You might be expected to lobby and/or campaign for the McCain agenda, but the 55-58 Democrats in the Senate would reject a Democratic VP trying to read the Constitution to "allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate," much less a Republican one. Ridiculous answer. She goes on to agree with Cheney’s view that the VP is in both branches at the same time. Yeeech. Did she misspeak or does she think that highly of herself and her future powers?

Biden said, "I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration" and goes on to describe a robust role for himself in an Obama administration more or less along the lines of Gore.

Biden's 2nd answer:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

No, Article I is the legislative branch. He probably meant to say Article II. That makes more sense, but it could be construed as if Biden didn't realize the Vice President was mentioned in both Articles. (The Senate is mentioned in Article II's "advice and consent" clause on Presidential appointments, but that doesn't mean the Senate is also "in" the executive branch.)

So did Biden misspeak or did he really not know the text of the Constitution? Here's where Biden's resume makes him bulletproof in a way Palin's doesn't. Of course he misspoke. He went on to say:

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

I agree with all of this except the last sentence. The Constitution is somewhat vague about the VP, and assigns the office few formal powers, and describing it as "explicit" marginalizes the importance of historical precedent in framing the role of the VP.

The final part of Biden's answer cited the "unitary executive" doctrine as dangerous. Agree or disagree, he had a clear opinion that the VP, the office he is seeking, has less power than Cheney or Palin claim for it.

Update: for more on how both candidates whiffed at the question about the office they are seeking, see here.