Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Delayed inauguration date has to be fixed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 10:53 AM
Original message
Delayed inauguration date has to be fixed
I totally agree with this column.

We really need to update some of these antiquated laws and customs.

This practice is as outdated as the Electoral College.



This is a dangerous interregnum for the American people, with a lameduck president whose mistakes have stripped him of credibility, influence and apparently confidence, and a new president still two months from taking power. That’s a problem we’ll need to address with a constitutional amendment that moves up the date of inauguration.

The current date was set by the 20th amendment, which accelerated the transfer of power from the original March 4 to the current Jan. 20. Not surprisingly, that change occurred in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, when Americans decided they couldn’t afford to wait four months between presidents. The amendment was passed by Congress in 1932 and in less than a year it had been ratified by enough states to take effect, which suggests the seriousness with which it was taken.

Now, with another major financial crisis underway, the lack of leadership from Washington could be a real problem. In one sense there’s not a lot a president could do — there’s no magic bill he could sign or rule he could change to make things better. But the markets are always driven by psychology, and never more so than in a moment like this. The difference between a sense of drift in Washington and a sense of strong leadership at the helm could be significant.

As the New York Times reports:

“We can’t get from here to Feb. 1 if the current ‘who’s in charge?’ situation continues,” said Robert Barbera, the chief economist of ITG, an investment firm, arguing that Congress should adopt a stimulus package, including temporary tax cuts, as rapidly as possible. Instead, he said, Washington seems paralyzed…

The Standard & Poor’s index of 500 stocks fell by more than 6 percent on two consecutive days, Wednesday and Thursday, something that had not happened since July 20 and 21, 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, when panic was brought on by collapsing commodity prices.”

The current collapse may halt, at least temporarily, when the New York markets open this morning, given what happened overnight. According to the AP, “European and Asian stock markets rebounded Friday as expectations of a recovery on Wall Street prompted investors to scoop up battered financial and energy shares.” But it’s hard to argue with any certainty that this is the worst of it.

Back before the election, legal scholar Sanford Levinson foresaw just this calamity, even proposing a possible if unlikely solution:

“As it happens, one doesn’t need to amend the Constitution to ‘solve’ this problem at least for this year: Dick Cheney could resign on November 5, to be replaced by the winner of the election. This could take place simply by following the procedures of the 25th Amendment, which allows a president to nominate a new vice president should the office become vacant, subject to congressional confirmation. Upon such confirmation, President Bush could then resign, to be succeeded by the newly installed Vice President….”

As Levinson acknowledges, that’s not going to happen. For the moment, we’re stuck with both our current president and our current system. One problem is two months from a solution; fixing the second will take a little more time.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. I understand this is a problem, but Levinson's proposed cure would
create another big problem. The time between the election & the inaguration is used to pick new cabinet secretaries and complete the vetting process, at least on the top positions. If the newly elected candidates would be forced to head an administration of all the old guards. Especially when you have a change of Party control, I can't see that working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Born_A_Truman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Exactly...
It takes time to put together a cabinet and do vetting. Until FDR in 1937, presidents used to take office on March 4th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. Need time to put together new President's team. If Obama was President now, jobs would be vacant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
3. I bet a lot of us like the notion of Cheney resigning on November 5th
Edited on Fri Nov-21-08 11:24 AM by truedelphi
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. No, I don't think ten weeks between the election and inauguration is a detriment
a new president needs time to assemble a government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldBlueDem Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Amending the Constitution
Amending the 20th Amendment to the Constitution would seem to be a waste of time and resources to get the inauguration moved up a few weeks. You still have to have the Electoral College meet and vote. If the country is going to take the time and effort to amend the Constitution, we might as well get rid of the Electoral College system and, as a part of that effort, move up the inauguration to January 3 when the new Congress takes office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. There needs to be a time of transition and getting one's government together
This would be a bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-21-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. There is a reason for the delay, lots of new jobs to fill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC