How about an "All laws must have teeth" law?

[Silent3]

I'd propose that, once Biden is in office, and especially if Democrats get the Senate too, we make sure that any federal laws pertaining to the duties of federal employees (like the law Emily Murphy is ignoring right now about ascertaining the transition), which currently have no clear consequences for non-compliance, are automatically giving some sort of default penalty and enforcement mechanism.

I'd propose something like immediate firing of any non-compliant employee from their current position, a year in prison, and, where applicable, a court-appointed temporary replacement sworn to carry out whatever duty is being shirked.

I'm just brainstorming, so I'm sure this is a far from perfect solution, it's just a general idea. But what is clear is that we can no longer depend on people following "norms". Norms don't cut it any more. Republicans, Trump more than anyone else, have totally trashed that idea.

[Mike 03]

1. And then: Harsh punishment for failure to enforce laws.

In some cases it is the laws that lack teeth; in other instances, there is a failure of enforcement IMO. William Barr is an example of a person who fails to enforce and, even worse, terminates lawful and fully predicated investigations.

I spent some time reading about Mexico. In Mexico, laws exist, but there is impunity in law enforcement, and they simply fail to enforce the laws.

[bullimiami]

2. we could start by enforcing the laws we have. for everyone. high, low, intermediate.

and suing for the usa to be made whole for every unconstitutional action.

[The Genealogist]

4. Laws seem only to apply to the commoners

Joe Schmo possesses a joint? Jail time in many places. Big guy destroys the nation's economy for everyone? Slap on the wrist, if that.

[marybourg]

3. The issue here is not really her non-compliance,

nor the lack of remedy, but the vagueness of the law, which allows a person of malevolent intent to interpret in the least benevolent way.

[marylandblue]

5. It's this, because it was assumed government officials wouldn't do it.

Congress didn't want to specify when the election was over because they wanted the transition to begin ASAP and there are too many variations to describe what should happen in each case. So they left it up to the discretion of GSA, assuming this couldn't possible be a partisan decision. There is really nothing to gain by delay, except in Trump's mind.

I think the law has to change now to take this discretion from GSA. Transition should automatically begin day after election even if nobody concedes. At worst, we wasted money on a transition that never occurs.

[marybourg]

6. Yes. The law need to be made e plicit.