4 ms·

There really should be a drastic limit to executive authority after an election and before a new administration takes office. I'm talking no new executive order

There really should be a drastic limit to executive authority after an election and before a new administration takes office. I'm talking no new executive orders, no pardons, no judicial nominations, really hardly any executive action at all without congressional approval. This would limit the kind of sour grapes, last minute policy changes arguably enacted in bad faith to hamstring an incoming president.

ac29 6y ago
I think thats an argument for reducing the time between elections and when people assume office, not for taking away administrative powers that can also be used for good things and for emergencies.
colejohnson66 6y ago
That would just worsen the “lame duck” issue we already have.[0] As @ac29 said, we should shorten the time between election and inauguration. Aside: As it stands, the constitution sets when Inauguration Day is (20th Amendment), so the only option it to modify the US Code which sets Election Day (Tuesday, between November 2-8 inclusive)[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)
- mullingitover 6y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree that the time between election and inauguration should be shortened. Really, the current administration's powers should be gone the minute the last tipping point state certifies its results.
cafard 6y ago
It is an old tradition, and in fact contributed very much to making the US what it is. John Adams appointed John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court very late in his one term. With a different justice--one with a less expansive view of federal power, or just one without the personality to carry the court with him--the Supreme Court might have considerably less weight. Apart from that, though, the worst I can remember from recent history are a pardon binge or two. But the outgoing president is not one to be constrained by custom.
jfengel 6y ago
There's really only so much you can do about a President acting in bad faith. If you elect a President who does that, you really messed yourself up already. In this case we did -- though honestly, the last minute pardons and orders were far less bad than they could have been. It's hard to tell how much of that is incompetence, how much is grumpiness, and how much is having pissed off his own party so much that there just wasn't much point. Executive orders are easily reversed. The Lame Duck period is actually pretty important. For those on the way out, it's the only time that they get to be truly free to vote their conscience. And even for those who will face re-election in 2 or 6 years, they have the maximum time to put any votes here into context (and to bury a lot of it in the flurry of lame duck work). It's one of the few times Congress can get around its deadlock and actually achieve what it's supposed to. And yeah, that includes the President. So if you go in assuming that government actually does have a function (as opposed to the all-purpose "government never does anything good and only bad things" argument, which is very lazy), it's best to start with the assumption that they're not going to be completely malign, even if they could be -- and we have evidence that they sometimes are. But it's very rare, and there are already a lot of checks and balances in place. It's true that there has become a lot of bad faith, and that is literally an existential crisis. But I don't think you'll fix it by putting even more restrictions on them doing their intended jobs. I'd much rather fix the bad faith problem -- which shouldn't be intractable. If we're going to be a country, and a democracy, we've got to find a way to have a certain faith in our fellow citizens. That's shattered now, but if it's unfixable, then it's the country that's unfixable, and no rules-tinkering will help.

ac29 6y ago

I think thats an argument for reducing the time between elections and when people assume office, not for taking away administrative powers that can also be used for good things and for emergencies.

colejohnson66 6y ago

That would just worsen the “lame duck” issue we already have.[0] As @ac29 said, we should shorten the time between election and inauguration. Aside: As it stands, the constitution sets when Inauguration Day is (20th Amendment), so the only option it to modify the US Code which sets Election Day (Tuesday, between November 2-8 inclusive)[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)

mullingitover 6y ago
I wholeheartedly agree that the time between election and inauguration should be shortened. Really, the current administration's powers should be gone the minute the last tipping point state certifies its results.

cafard 6y ago

It is an old tradition, and in fact contributed very much to making the US what it is. John Adams appointed John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court very late in his one term. With a different justice--one with a less expansive view of federal power, or just one without the personality to carry the court with him--the Supreme Court might have considerably less weight. Apart from that, though, the worst I can remember from recent history are a pardon binge or two. But the outgoing president is not one to be constrained by custom.

jfengel 6y ago

There's really only so much you can do about a President acting in bad faith. If you elect a President who does that, you really messed yourself up already. In this case we did -- though honestly, the last minute pardons and orders were far less bad than they could have been. It's hard to tell how much of that is incompetence, how much is grumpiness, and how much is having pissed off his own party so much that there just wasn't much point. Executive orders are easily reversed. The Lame Duck period is actually pretty important. For those on the way out, it's the only time that they get to be truly free to vote their conscience. And even for those who will face re-election in 2 or 6 years, they have the maximum time to put any votes here into context (and to bury a lot of it in the flurry of lame duck work). It's one of the few times Congress can get around its deadlock and actually achieve what it's supposed to. And yeah, that includes the President. So if you go in assuming that government actually does have a function (as opposed to the all-purpose "government never does anything good and only bad things" argument, which is very lazy), it's best to start with the assumption that they're not going to be completely malign, even if they could be -- and we have evidence that they sometimes are. But it's very rare, and there are already a lot of checks and balances in place. It's true that there has become a lot of bad faith, and that is literally an existential crisis. But I don't think you'll fix it by putting even more restrictions on them doing their intended jobs. I'd much rather fix the bad faith problem -- which shouldn't be intractable. If we're going to be a country, and a democracy, we've got to find a way to have a certain faith in our fellow citizens. That's shattered now, but if it's unfixable, then it's the country that's unfixable, and no rules-tinkering will help.