Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Repeal and Replace the 20th Amendment?
When the Constitution was ratified it could take a traveler in the neighborhood of 2½ weeks to get from the southernmost state capital (Augusta, GA) to the nation’s capital in New York – and that was in good weather. To that end, the transition period between administrations was set at almost 16 weeks. This was “rectified” in 1933 with the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment that set the beginning of the new Congressional term at January 3rd and Inauguration Day for the president at January 20th.
Rain and sleet mark the first January inauguration speech of FDR
Franklin Roosevelt was both the last president sworn in on March 4th and the first sworn in on January 20th. Flight has since eclipsed rail as the preferred method of travel. Is it time for another change?
In the UK, admittedly a tiny nation compared to the United States, the transition between governments is measured in hours. It is also helped by the parliamentary system where the opposition leader has a leg up on forming a cabinet. Still, as this transition from Biden to Trump is illustrating, eleven weeks may still be too long.
Trump fans may be champing at the bit, fearful that Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have too much time to commit lame-duck shenanigans. On the other hand, if you have no trust in elections, you may not have trust in a quick transition, either. But as Thomas Sowell famously said, “There are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs.”
So, what is a more proper timetable? (Or for that matter is the present one okay?) I would begin with the Congress changing within two weeks and setting the presidential inaugural within a week of the Electoral College vote. Regardless of who one voted for, we should be able to agree that it’s time to get this show on the road.
Published in General
You may be right about a needed adjustment to the inaugural day for a newly elected POTUS. However, I never felt any need for an adjustment until the recent Biden and Obama terms. Usually, an outgoing administration has been polite enough to acknowledge the incoming President has just won the election and should be given courteous deference when it comes to highly politicized actions of the current and outgoing regime. However, politeness and courtesy are no longer part of political behavior.
I agree that the length of time should be changed, but I’d prefer that the period be one month from the election date. Maybe the states will get off their rear ends and complete vote counting in a timely fashion.
I think both of those dates are fair. Having the new Congress start two weeks after they are elected eliminates the crapfest that is lame duck.
These days, unfortunately, we have to allow for almost inevitable election lawfare, which can sometimes take as much time to wind its way up through the court system as it took a traveler to get from Augusta to New York in bad weather back in the late 1700s.
Intriguing idea. There really is a great case for repealing or modifying the 20th. So there’s both a politics-neutral case (air travel vs. carriage) and a conservative reason for doing it. So far, outgoing conservative administrations have been notable in their care and assistance to the newbies. Outgoing leftist administrations invariably stink up the place as far as they can get away with.
But the intriguing part is that it would introduce the idea of constitutional change to redress a century and a quarter of leftist depredations. We could really do without the 16th and 17th, and repealing the 20th would move them squarely into the Overton window.
I’m not sure what the repeal of the 16th Amendment would do. It’s not like the Federal Government has been restrained from spending money they don’t have.
The transition should not be shortened for two reasons. It takes a long time to nominate and confirm all the advice-and-consent positions, so a shorter transition would result in an administration that is even more short-staffed at the beginning.
Second, when there are recounts or election lawsuits, the time for them is already short. Trump lost some of his 2020 electoral challenges simply because there was not enough time to prepare them properly or for the courts to hear them.
UK governments are able to transition more quickly because the opposition already has a shadow government in place.
If each party had a shadow government in place by election day, wouldn’t that provide people with information to use in the voting booth?
As would Prime Minister’s Questions. I would love to see the President go to Congress every week and have to answer questions for an hour.
Why? Right now there’s 17 days between Congress being sworn in and the inauguration. My time table doesn’t shorten that. A presidential candidate would just have to have his act together.
It’s been four years and we’re still arguing about 2020. What’s the proper interval? Six months to four years?
Less than half of shadow cabinet picks in the UK go on to head the department they had portfolio for in opposition.
Except if the shadow positions also required “advise and consent” of the previous congress before taking the position… or if they still required it from the new congress they might not actually get in.
Does UK even have that kind of requirement?
Trump could do that easily, FJB and FKH wouldn’t have a chance.
All ministers are still MPs. Parliament is sovereign. There is no separation of powers.
The House of Lords is limited in its powers.
No president, regardless of how organized he is, can nominate thousands of advice and consent positions in the two and half months we have now. Shortening the transition would only make it worse.
I’m not arguing about 2020. I’m pointing out that the period between the election and the certification of electors is so short that it is difficult to resolve election challenges. But I’m also not advocating for lengthening the transition to six months or four years.
But many do.
I don’t think requiring cabinet officials to be House members would work.
And while we’re at it, let’s close the window on late ballots. It is obscene that some jurisdictions are still tallying a full month after the election.
The Founders didn’t want it because it would violate separation of powers. They had bad experience with MPs serving in the government. Article 1, Clause 6, Section 2:
Couldn’t we just not have a lame-duck session before the inauguration?
How about this:
Election Day
Congress is in office but out of session between Election Day and Inauguration Day to transition administrations.
Inauguration Day is moved to January 3rd.
What would Congress do if they are not in session? I like your idea but think they could get into their usual mischief if they are in DC.
Tell the ones who got voted out they’ve got three weeks to pack their bags and get out of their offices. And then three weeks for the new guys to move in before the inauguration.
Now, I may very well be missing something here in the machinations of the leviathan. I’m just an idiot armchair quarterback here.
Members of the new Government retain their seats in Parliament, I think.
Yeah, I think the newfound propensity for a lengthy election season rather than a singular election day makes a short transition period after election more problematic.
That would have the effect of making congress less important than the president.
The British shadow government is almost entirely drawn from their legislature. It would be as if our executive agencies were run by congressional committees and the majority party switches now and then. Our separation of powers model doesn’t work that way.
Our federal government is unwieldy — 4,000 (probably more) political positions which in turn have some additional staff hiring options. The Senate has to confirm over a thousand and the Democrats made that process as cumbersome as possible starting in the 1980s when they thought they might not ever win the WH again.
The skills to campaign and win the office do not correlate with categorical expertise in specialized regulatory areas not the unique management skills required in government. And the permanent staff know the appointees will not be there long.
The think tanks have some people and knowledgebases but nowhere near enough for all those slots.
My brother had a minor functionary White House job under Reagan. He said that in the transition meetings and gatherings, VP Bush’s people showed up with lists, contacts, connections and organizational plans for staffing. Bush was an establishment inside guy. Reagan’s people were not and lots of slots went to Bush’s people because Reagan was an outsider who did not have people on lists or even a good working list of all the slots.
If government keeps getting bigger, elections will matter less and less.
Ministers come and go but the civil service is permanent. “There are no ends in administration, Minister,” says Sir Humphrey. “Only loose ends. Administration is eternal.” To which says Bernard, “Forever and ever. Amen.”