Do US presidents have to serve with a VP?

[maveric]

Madison went without for a while and Tyler didn't have one at all.
Are VP's mandatory now?

[elleng]

1. The executive power of both the vice president and the president is granted under Article Two,

The Vice President of the United States (VPOTUS) is the second-highest position in the executive branch of the United States, after the president.[1] The executive power of both the vice president and the president is granted under Article Two, Section One of the Constitution. The vice president is indirectly elected, together with the president, to a four-year term of office by the people of the United States through the Electoral College.[2] The vice president is the first person in the presidential line of succession, and would normally ascend to presidency upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president.[3]

For much of its existence, the office of vice president was seen as little more than a minor position. Adams, the first vice president, was the first of many who found the job frustrating and stupefying, writing to his wife Abigail that "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."[33] Many vice presidents lamented the lack of meaningful work in their role. John Nance Garner, who served as vice president from 1933 to 1941 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, claimed that the vice presidency "isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss."[34] Harry Truman, who also served as vice president under Roosevelt, said that the office was as "useful as a cow's fifth teat."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States

[sofa king]

2. Yes, the President "shall" nominate a successor, BUT...

... Exactly as President Obama "shall" fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court, the President "shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

So says the 25th Amendment, Section 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Vice_Presidential_vacancy

The President is required to nominate a successor Vice President, but Congress is under no obligation to approve that nominee. The word "shall" is non-discretionary, except to Republicans.

That last clause is pretty important because if it were to happen today, Republicans in Congress, always looking to misuse the law for the furtherance of their own ends, would almost certainly refuse to approve a successor to Joe Biden. The reason is simple: if the vacancy is not filled, the Republican Speaker of the House would inherit the White House should President Obama vacate the office.

Congressional Republicans would certainly see that opportunity and use their amazing ability to not act on things... to not act upon it.

[branford]

3. "Shall" only applies to the President nominating a potential vice-president.

"Shall" does not refer to the nominee's confirmation by either House of Congress. Their choice to confirm or not is indeed entirely discretionary. It is not materially different that Congress discretionary authority concerning the current Supreme Court vacancy under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

I would also note that Democrats have chosen not to hold hearings and vote on Republican nominees to both executive and judicial branch positions. Just ask Vice-President Biden.

You (and I) likely both oppose Republican obstruction in Congress, but it is political, not constitutional, issue.

[sofa king]

4. Don't disagree

But I think one might be able to argue that since "shall" is the operative verb of the sentence in both cases, the Senate does not have the option to avoid hearings. They don't have to consent to the nominee, but their actual defined job is to consider the nomination.

From a purely political point of view, compelling the Senate to hold hearings would be hilarious and politically damaging to the GOP, as they don't know what they are doing and do not have any good reasons to deny the current SCt nominee. So yeah I'll crawl out on the "not a lawyer" limb and hang that flag....