Skip to comments.Kill The Lame Duck
Posted on 12/20/2010 6:01:45 PM PST by Kaslin
Governance: It is an anachronism a constitutional amendment tried to kill. It lets defeated legislators wreak political and economic havoc without consequence. Like the dodo, the lame duck should be extinct.
Elections are supposed to have consequences, one of them being occasionally throwing the rascals out. Yet here the rascals we threw out on Nov. 2 are still running the roost and deciding the fate of our republic in ways we have already rejected.
Enter the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified on Jan. 23, 1933, it was designed to end forever the excesses of lame duck sessions, but because of the way it was written utterly failed to accomplish one of its main purposes.
We forget that in the early days of a growing nation it was not easy to get around. Presidents were inaugurated in and Congresses lasted until March largely because newly elected representatives of the people had difficulty getting back and forth between their districts and states to Washington, D.C.
This unfortunately let defeated legislators work their mischief, such as in 1801 when members of the New Federalist party saw it as a good opportunity for the wholesale appointment of judges.
In 1922, Warren G. Harding and defeated Republicans tried to use it to pass unpopular bills, just as today's Democrats have tried to do.
By 1933, we had trains and automobiles, if not jet planes, but travelling cross country was still time-consuming and not without its difficulties. Yet it was thought that the reason for such a huge gap between election and taking office was no longer necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Shoot the lame ducks on the wing. It’s the only sporting (and humane) thing to do. / s
The commie drubbing? Before Dunham Soetoro goes golfing in hawaii, he will give a speech on START passing, Homo-military passing etc, and wednesday he meets with the wetback caucus to discuss executive order wetbacking.
Ratified on Jan. 23, 1933, it was designed to end forever the excesses of lame duck sessions,
uhhhh....no, it wasn’t.
If it was designed to do that, it would have clearly stated that “Congress shall not be in session between Election Day and the swearing-in date of the incoming Congress”.
When legislative language does not speak clearly it was specifically designed to allow them to pull a fast one.
why can’t the new congress come in and overturn every single one of these pathetic bills that this democrat congress has passed.
They could try, but the boy president would veto them.
The lame duck session is pretty idiotic under present conditions.
Get Soetoro on the record of vetoing them. He now owns the failure.
“The winners of School Board Elections in NJ take office the following day. The same term of office should exist for both Houses of Congress. “
That’s the way peaceful government transitions occur in the anglosphere, except for the USA. It’s just a matter of time before our drawn-out, chaotic transitions cause riots in the streets.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
How about 10 days and a provision that only issues of national security (declaration of war etc.) can be addressed in that 10 days. If some counts/recounts are not completed in the 10 day period, that seat shall remain vacant until it is decided.
You'd have a hard time getting those repeals through the Senate without 60 votes. And, a dim Senate will protect their president...in most cases.
Without a simple majority in the Senate you can't even get a bill to the floor or under committee consideration without support of the Majority Leader.
The majority of each house of Congress controls it own agenda.
They might be able to get repeal bills passed, but without veto-proof majorities, they need The Won's signature, which they won't get, unless they can extort him somehow. The only problem with that is that the payoff to him would have to be significantly big and something no one wants.
There might need to be a period for the new guys to hire staff, etc.. Let them still be seated in January, but no one meets or votes between election day and when the new guys get seated.
No one whose lost his reelection bid may vote? That way they never get a free window of repercussion free voting. They have to pretend right up to election day to work for the voters, and then after, they can’t do anything. The “national security” exception scares me, because they’ll drive a truck through it, or just ignore it. (Remember Nanny Moochelle’s childhood obesity “work” has national security implications!) They might not be able to ignore a blanket prohibition, or at least the law could later be shown to be invalid because it passed with votes that were illegal.
It will take a real Const. amendment to do this though the Const. has no real language on this activity; it is inferred. So the Pubs could get brave and try it but I doubt they will follow through.
There IS a need for some period of time between election day and the new folks taking office, just simply due to the logistics of removing one staff and replacing it with another. How long that should be is another question.
The rule should be that no votes can be cast between the election and the swearing-in.