Vice-president with real duties: the US equivalent of the Home Secretary

Suppose, in a spasm of wisdom? inspiration? at some point in the 19th century, after a sufficiently large number of cabinet-level departments had arisen, that some unsung person(s) came up with the notion that the hitherto-poorly-defined office of vice president should be given roughly the same duties as the British Home Secretary, on the grounds that this would prove to be a valuable training ground in the event that the VP would need to step up to the highest office?

When I say "roughly", I'm thinking the VP would have today the departments of the interior, commerce, labor, energy, veterans affairs, HUD, education, and whatever else I'm forgetting. However, state, treasury, defense, and justice would still report directly to the president.
 
The only true "Deputy Presidents" have been Dick Cheney, Robert Kennedy and James Byrnes. Domestically, mostly Kennedy and Byrnes. Both of them were crucial to keeping their administrations running as efficiently as they did.
 
Last edited:
Suppose, in a spasm of wisdom? inspiration? at some point in the 19th century, after a sufficiently large number of cabinet-level departments had arisen, that some unsung person(s) came up with the notion that the hitherto-poorly-defined office of vice president should be given roughly the same duties as the British Home Secretary, on the grounds that this would prove to be a valuable training ground in the event that the VP would need to step up to the highest office?

When I say "roughly", I'm thinking the VP would have today the departments of the interior, commerce, labor, energy, veterans affairs, HUD, education, and whatever else I'm forgetting. However, state, treasury, defense, and justice would still report directly to the president.

Commerce, labour, energy, veterans affairs, HUD and education are nothing to do with the Home Secretary, in the UK at least. The Home Sec is a sort of Homeland Security, but with the police and citizenship. The Home Secretary also used to be in control of various of the post-conviction criminal justice business, but that has been split off in to the Ministry of Justice (and the Justice Secretary).
 
Thanks, custard, for that information/correction. Guess I got misled by the title "home secretary" into believing it was more inclusive, taking in all manner of domestic affairs.

OK, in deference to the UK model, let's rename the collection of departments reporting to the VP in this hypothetical case as "domestic affairs".
 
1940L: That's too much for one man to handle. What Kennedy and Byrnes did was that more in line of a Deputy Prime Minister like Whitelaw did for Thatcher: runs the daily operations of the government while their superior focused on the grand scheme of things, and the long term. In addition they have a senior portfolio of their own. That's a lot to handle, but you pick people who have the energy and multitasking capability- which both RFK and Byrnes did.
 
Wallace didn't have much influence outside his department IIRC. Let's not exaggerate Cheney's influence, given the stories about Bush's second term. I know for a fact that Byrnes and Kennedy had roles far beyond their own portfolios.
 
That's way too much work for one person. Also, all of those except Interior were founded post-1900, so the idea of combining them with the vice-presidency is unlikely in the 1800s. If these departments were combined, then the VP would probably be effectively just another Cabinet secretary. Also, before the 25th Amendment was passed, there was no defined line of presidential succession. All of the VPs who ascended to the Presidency after the previous President died in office had no VP of their own until the next election. That leaves no one to handle the "Home Secretary" role you have the VP covering. For this to work, you need to define the line of Presidential succession before the 1960s. The US gambled big until then that no President would die in office without a VP. If one had, there would have been a major constitutional crisis at the very least.
 
Wallace didn't have much influence outside his department IIRC. Let's not exaggerate Cheney's influence, given the stories about Bush's second term. I know for a fact that Byrnes and Kennedy had roles far beyond their own portfolios.
DepartmentS...lest you forget, he was AG Secretary, THEN VP, then Commerce Secretary. He also had roles in war production as well.
 
Suppose, in a spasm of wisdom? inspiration? at some point in the 19th century, after a sufficiently large number of cabinet-level departments had arisen, that some unsung person(s) came up with the notion that the hitherto-poorly-defined office of vice president should be given roughly the same duties as the British Home Secretary, on the grounds that this would prove to be a valuable training ground in the event that the VP would need to step up to the highest office?

When I say "roughly", I'm thinking the VP would have today the departments of the interior, commerce, labor, energy, veterans affairs, HUD, education, and whatever else I'm forgetting. However, state, treasury, defense, and justice would still report directly to the president.

I think you get this if you re write Senate rules to say that the VP can do more in terms of Senatorial debate then simply cast the tie breaker, which is what the Senate did in the 1790s in reaction to John Adams being an obnoxious boor. In this situation then possibly the senate allows the VP to in essence be like a Prime Minister and ensure that the POTUS' agenda is carried out. Sort of like what a Chief of Staff does. The VPOTUS would be more of a deal maker and get things done domestically position than just a warm bucket of spit. In this case the VP is like a Minister without Portfolio (as exists in Europe and IIRC in China) sort of a jack of all trades just kind of dropping in when needed.
 
Top