In June 2007, vice president Dick Cheney declined to pass several classified documents held by his office on the assumption that the vice president, as president of the Senate, is legislative branch representative, which 'is not entity within executive branch.' While confusing scholars, journalists and legal experts, the vital question remains: where does the vice presidency belong? In this paper, the author argues that due to the constitutional duty of being ex officio the president of the Senate, the vice presidency has long been more part of the executive branch of American government. Both symbolically - having seal similar to presidential one, Air Force Two and an executive office that mirrors the presidential one - and, more importantly, politically, due to being the chief executive's advisor and representative, spokesman and potential successor, the vice president has been a presidential branch member. In this paper the author will investigate the historical shift of the vice presidency toward the executive branch.
After significant gains in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, along with succeeding in winning many state and local races, the Republican establishment was waiting for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections with high and justified hopes. As the U.S. economic situation had not recovered the way President Obama had expected, which translated into his rather moderate job approval ratings, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was expected to make Barack Obama a one‑term president. However, as in contemporary presidential campaigns, electoral context alone seems not to be enough to claim the presidency, and other factors intervened which ensured the re‑election of the 44th president of the United States. At the same time, while the same electoral context gave Democrats more votes in congressional elections, somehow it did not give them the majority in the House of Representatives, guaranteeing the status quo from the 2010 cycle. In this paper, the author identifies the main forces behind the results of both presidential and congressional 2012 elections, arguing that while context was vital for the conducting of the campaign, other factors contributed to the contemporary, post‑2012 American political scene. What is important is that the so‑called structural factors in the presidential and congressional election seem likely to make this scene stagnate for many years to come.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.