| turingtest |
21st November 2020 05:14 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by zooterkin
(Post 13301996)
Talking of lame ducks, has there been any serious proposal to reduce the time between the result of the election being known, and the new president taking over? I imagine the two months were originally needed in order to count the votes and get the representatives together in the age of horse and steam, but that's no longer the case.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadmaker
(Post 13302008)
When the Constitution was written, before steam, it was even later. I think it was March 4. It was sometime in March.
Today, with airplanes and teleconferencing, it really ought to be very fast, so I think an amendment is in order. The lame duck period is bad for the country, in my opinion. I'm puzzled why counting the votes and settling the related disputes take so much longer here than in other countries. I suppose it's related to the fact that we have fifty one ways of casting votes, and sometimes it isn't even uniform in a state.
ETA: But I haven't a call for such an amendment that would be taken seriously, i.e. either from a prominent politician or from major media outlets.
|
As Meadmaker says, no, there have been no serious conversations about shortening that lame duck period. I can see TGZ's point here too, that the federal government is a big, complicated machine that a new set of drivers need time to get in gear properly; in normal circumstances (i.e., with a lame duck President who isn't throwing a hissy fit about being one), that wouldn't be an issue. But Trump's presidency seems, if nothing else, to be a lesson in how that machine can be broken by someone determined to make his successor's voter-sanctioned use of it a failure from the get-go. Maybe, instead of shortening the lame-duck period, some provisions could be made, via Constitutional amendment if necessary, that would limit an outgoing President's ability to kneecap the next guy- for example, no SC justices (even other federal judges) to be nominated during this period. And I've seen where Mnuchin has taken some action (Reuters article), re the Fed, that will impact the economy well into Biden's term, even if he reverses the action quickly- that might be another area that could be addressed by limitations on lame duck Presidential action.
Hell, you would think the GOP would be at least half on board for something like this, based on their mealy-mouthed antics in Obama's last year. And I predict that if a SC vacancy occurs during Biden's last year in office before an election (never mind after his possible defeat in it), they will revive their empty "let the people have a voice!" rhetoric. Their standards are like their rhetoric though, entirely situational and tactical- they would never support such limitations on lame ducks if he's one of theirs, so it's better to not be bound by them in any way stronger than easily-disavowed speechifying.
|
