beep writes:

HOWEVER, the rest of the statement about getting more involved is actually more closely aligned with the constitutional role than the current practice...so those being critical and saying she should read the Constitution...might want to read it and understand it better as well.

Hmmm.

http://caselaw.lp.fi...tution/article01/

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.

Article II doesn't say much about his/her duties, either.

Federalist 68 talks a little about the VP:

http://avalon.law.ya...century/fed68.asp

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

It doesn't sound to me like the VP was intended to "get in there and get their hands dirty drafting legislation and pushing the President's agenda" as Sarah (roughly) put it.

It seems clear to me that the VP was intended to break ties in the Senate, and succeed the President if necessary.

YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott.