Trump demonstrates why we should limit the powers of lame-duck presidents
By: BY DAVID SCHULTZ,
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump demonstrates why we should limit the powers of lame-duck presidents
© Getty Images
Constitutionally, U.S. presidential power is all-or-nothing. Either one is president of the United States with the full scope of authority, or one is not, lacking any formal powers. This is the reality even after elections with lame-duck presidents and presidents-elect during transitions. This needs to change.
As with so many other issues, Donald Trump’s presidency has revealed flaws in our constitutional design, one created for a horse-and-buggy era, or when it was assumed that the leaders we selected would observe certain unwritten rules about the use of presidential authority. Presidential transitions are one of those areas that need fixing.
The Constitution’s Framers likely gave little, if any, thought to presidential transitions in 1787. They called for the Electoral College to pick the president, but there was no uniform date for when the electors would vote and no explanation about when a president would take office. George Washington took office on March 4, 1789, simply because that was the date the Constitution took effect. That date stuck until 1933, when the 20th Amendment set Jan. 20 as the date for a new presidential term to start. That amendment and the Uniform Time for Federal Elections Law , which dictates that the presidential election will occur on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, mean that between Election Day and inauguration day nearly two-and-a-half months will pass. This means that a person rejected by voters still enjoys the full perks of presidential power long after being voted out of office, while the newly chosen leader must wait to act.
It is not that way in other countries. Across the world, either transition periods are dramatically more brief in time, or the existing leaders are limited to performing caretaker functions. Yet handoffs of presidential power in the United States are different. While the Presidential Transaction Act of 1963 provides funding and resources for new presidents, it does little else. Our Constitution leaves it to the incumbent and the president-elect to work out transitions. Historically, all but for 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, the transitions have been mostly uneventful.
But outgoing presidents often have used the lame-duck period to cement in their legacy — for good and bad. They issue executive orders, grant pardons, or take other actions. Some would argue they use the opportunity to act without political constraints to do things they believe are good for the country but that may not be popular — again, such as issuing unpopular but merciful pardons, or invoking the Antiquities Act to preserve federal lands from development.
Yet President Trump ’s last acts as president appear to be more destructive than good for the country. Witness his actions to try to overturn the election results, and his persistent refusal to cooperate in the transition by denying President-elect Biden’s team access to vital intelligence and other information that is important to national security. Also consider his decisions to veto a military budget bill, impede a pandemic relief bill, issue pardons to his supporters who broke the law, executive orders on the environment , and perhaps make foreign policy decisions that affect U.S. interests. At best, lame-duck presidents should not be able to make such major decisions. At worst, these appear to be efforts to sabotage an incoming administration before it gets started.
One can hope that Donald Trump is a one-of-a-kind president and his exit is unique. But he is only the most extreme example of a problem regarding presidential transitions that should be fixed. The process of selecting a president involving the Electoral College may foreclose a shorter transition period — but even if it could be briefer, the use of lame-duck powers and the absence of authority for the president-elect persists.
By law, and perhaps constitutional amendment, these problems might be fixed. For example, we could limit lame-duck executive orders, presidential vetoes, judicial and other appointments, and pardons. Incoming presidents should have a say over post-election legislation and be given automatic access to intelligence, and perhaps even authority to take action in some situations.
The Founding Fathers were smart but they failed to think about presidential transitions of power. Many presidents have sought to use post-election time as a last-ditch effort to cement their legacies, and Trump more than most has demonstrated the problems with leaving the hand-off of power to goodwill and chance.
David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn. Follow him on Twitter @ProfDSchultz .
Before commenting, it is suggested that members familiarize themselves with the RED RULES of this group. They may be accessed by clicking on the group avatar near the top right of this page.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
"At worst, these appear to be efforts to sabotage an incoming administration before it gets started."
There is no doubt in my mind that that is the case.
What are these Presidential powers that should be limited? And why limit the power of only lame-duck Presidents?
A peaceful transition of government is supposed to entail a continuation of policy. But that's not what happens. Incoming administrations overturn and reverse the policies of the previous administration, especially when they represent opposing political parties.
Perhaps the problem really involves vesting political parties with too much power.
Or having a Congress that doesn't do it's job and fix problems. Case in point, immigration. I would think that everybody can agree that the system is broken but Congress has not fixed it yet. Their solutions continue to devolve to partisan talking points where they cannot come to agreement and so they punt to the courts or the administration. When the administration goes to do something they do it with an EO which by nature is overturned by the next President.
All because we have the worst group of people in positions of leadership.
The Presidency has its own Constitutional authority over the executive plus legislative authority that Congress has pushed into the executive bureaucracy. Congress has been delegating its authority and responsibilities to the executive bureaucracy.
The problem is that the political party controls those in elected office. Un-elected party officials exert influence over government policy because the party controls elected officials. (The problem Trump poses is that typical party politics has not swayed Trump or controlled Trump. Trump has not governed for the good of the Republican Party.)
I disagree, we just need to elect responsible, competent, statesperson-like human beings as PotUS
Let's try that for 2024
Here's another idea: We should down considerably the time between the actual Election and the day the winner is inaugurated.
It takes time for the new PotUS to establish a working plan and to get the considerable staff in place for administration.
Incidentally, I read that the reason that the period was so long stems from the early days-- when the news about who won the Election was spread by Pony Express. So many people in some parts of the country didn't receive the news for days...
Agreed, I think a month is more than long enough.
But perhaps not all that long if the challenging candidate starts preparing well in advance of the Election. (Its a good idea... and even if they lose the Election, it still would be worth it IMO)
no, the Pony Express only existed for around 18 months.
LOL I posted that concept before reading your comment about starting earlier, then when I saw you already covered that, I deleted my comment. Great minds, etc.
Meh!
Your attitude reminds me of a poem by Ogden Nash:
The Purist
by Ogden Nash
I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist,
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."
well. since you have made it such a point about how you love facts, thought I would give you a real fact.
besides, the Pony Express was much, much later.
It's only about two and a half months. It used to be longer. Meanwhile, government has only grown more complex. Biden and his people are very busy right now preparing to govern. There is a lot to do to in that regard. I don't mind giving them time to do it.
Indeed, some argue just for the sake of it.
Others fall under the category of Whiny Little Bitch.
Well, since you love to derail the conversation when you're losing an argument-- many people are wondering if they should give you a real derail!
trolling a two week old comment.
lol
It's not an easy job. You want to be President step up.
I do not see how this applies to what I wrote:
My words are saying that getting prepared to be the next PotUS takes time. That certainly would imply that it is a difficult job.
So what point are you trying to make?
I agree with you, but as trump has proven, electing a normal, mentally stable person as POTUS doesn't always happen, so I think there should be some limits on what a lame duck can do.
Perhaps a poor comparison but.. We wont be getting rid of drunk driving laws because we expect people to do the right thing, nor can we rely on the population to elect someone that's responsible.
If we elect a PotUS who cannot be trusted as a lame duck, then don't we have a bigger problem in the almost four years of office that precedes the lame duck period?
We need better candidates for this office.
No doubt, but the problem is that the public cannot be trusted to not elect assholes....Exhibit A:
Agreed.
And also better voters! But the odds of that happening are slim at best.
Actually, our Founding Fathers were aware of that. And in writing our Constitution, they kept that in mind.
One criticism we sometimes hear about it is that change happens to slowly. But they were weighing that against the fact that if they allowed change to happen too quickly, that would also not be good...
People are not perfect, The Constitution is not perfect. And they took that into account in writing it.
But as someone once said:
Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others!
The Young Orator 1907
Of course you're right, but things can happen - people could be fooled, or a POTUS could change in midstream and eliminate the "TU" from POTUS....
Trump didn't change, and people weren't fooled. Everything he's done has been consistent with our expectations.
Exactly.
Not being an American may be an excuse, but at first I saw him as a POTUS who kept promises, unlike others before him, and it wasn't until after that that I realized how wrong I was about him.
I sure as hell wasn't fooled. that asshole has been showing red flags for six decades and fits several stereotypes to a tee. con man, racist, philanderer, scam artist.
Exactly.
All I knew about Trump before he became POTUS was what I learned from watching The Apprentice.
Perhaps a more accurate way of putting that might be:
and while many people weren't fooled .. . some were.
Maybe a few. The vast majority knew exactly what they were getting.
I think such individuals might be becoming an endangered species.
That is what the 25th does. Enact it NOW!!!!! I don't care if he has less than a month to go. He can do a lot of damage in that time.
As the article pointed out, he's succeeding in doing so.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that he's set an all-time record for the total number of convicted Felons he's pardoned!
(Plus a few who have been indicted but not yet convicted . . .)
the number of Trump computations and pardons are far less than many Presidents, since I know how you love facts and all.
Correct. I'm a stickler for facts.
But also something else.
In a discussion..I call it... "Making what's important important".
We could go on and on posting factual, but unrelated facts. And while sometimes people do it occasionally, intent is important. And your intent is obvious.
(And it ain't pretty!!!
)
Your use of "facts" only sorts to distract from what's important-- and only serves to degrade the conversation. And eventually pulls down the level of discourse on the entire site.
(One way of doing that sort of derail is known as the "Whattaboutism"-- which is obviously your preferred "Go To" method of trolling!)
So cut it out!
(I'm gonna start calling you on it every time I see it-- until you cut the crap-- or until one of us gets banned. .Hopefully others will too. Everytime you pull that crap, I hope others call you out as well...
Comments anyone??
I give what I get and if someone doesn't like, tough shit.
You posted this:
So I merely pointed out the FACT that Trump is lagging far behind his predecessors.
Look, I get it that Trump haters don't want to hear THAT fact--especially when they are braying about how he might set a record for pardons--based on nothing more than wild-ass guesses.
Feel free to ignore my posts since they do seem to upset you so.
It's commutation.
Exactly. Trump's "computations" are nothing to be proud of. He can't seem to correctly "compute" the number of electoral college votes he received.
Why, yes, yes it is! Wow, you caught me in a typo!
Congrats!!
ha ha ha
Well the nature of your contributions to NT are pretty obvious at this point....
your opinion is, well, just your opinion
Come on people, Trump was elected for some very good reasons.
One, he wasn't a politician. (He wasn't much of a businessman either)
Two, he was a businessman (although all of his business went under and 4 or 5 or 6 declared bankruptcy, great qualifications for the presidency)
Three, he was a reality TV star and a con man, remember Trump University.
That, my friends, is more than enough first-rate qualifications to be elected as the most powerful person in the world.
One more thing, he never takes responsibility for anything, of course, he didn't do much of anything either.
The deficit, which he has increased bigly under Trump will soon be back to a positive number. The check from Mexico is on the way and we won the trade war with China, EU, and most of the known world. (don't pay attention to the largest deficit in history or the fact that China kicked our ass in the trade war)
I see no reason to put anything in effect that will disallow the president power in his lame duck period.
Before I learned about Trump and he was considering running, I thought why not elect a businessman instead of a politician. Then as I learned more about him I had to ask myself "What the f was I thinking?!?!?"
Well, as with other classes of people-- not all business man are alike.
And some do an excellent job when elected to office.
He was (and still is) a con man-- plain and simple.
And like most experienced Con Men, he's good at fooling people. Granted, a minority of the population. (I before his recent mental breakdown, it was about 40-43% of the population at its peak).
But things are changing-- mainly with the people he's conned. Especially many Republicans.
He excels at fooling stupid people.
Demonstrably! Substantial evidence of this abounds.
If so, America has a GIANT problem with its educational system, or else "Something is rotten in the state of America". (with apologies to William S.)
We need to focus more on developing critical thinking skills. Far too many millions merely accept as truth that which a trusted authority proclaims. That trusted authority is often a religious or political leader. We should follow the lead from science where there are, by definition, no authorities. The authority of science, so to speak, comes from sound, highly scrutinized evidence ... not mere declaration.
We need more math and science classes in public schools
That might help, but critical thinking does not always manifest simply because someone is learned in mathematics and science. Look at Dr. Ben Carson. He can perform brilliantly in his chosen field but outside of it he is entirely unimpressive and bases his decisions on his religious faith.
More word problems, not just abstract equations that just teach you the mechanics.
Also, maybe somebody could develop how to use critical thinking skills in subjects like English and History. Present a problem and then work on a solution
Sounds good.
As an ex-science teacher, I can tell you, yes, and more money for supplies. Science is a hands-on, experiential study and without that, no child actually learns it properly.
I always thought that diagramming sentences was an exercise in critical thinking skills. I don't think that's part of the curriculum anymore.
When I was in high school we used to joke that the students at University of Miami took courses in basket weaving.
One recent example:
Murkowski becomes first GOP senator to call on Trump to resign
Unlike my classmates, I loved diagramming sentences. I would search for long sentences to diagram for extra credit. I also would be paid by some of my classmates to do theirs. Between the money for that and the money I got in typing class, I was pulling in about 10 bucks a week. I was able to afford a pair of expensive wing tip cowboy boots. That was pretty sweet money for that time.
I don't know why they quit teaching that. That was something that made sense and made you put words together logically
I liked it, too. I can see how some people might think it's boring, but I felt like it made you really think about language and how to get your point across clearly.
My teacher friends say they teach a version of it, but my son never brought home any homework that featured diagramming sentences.
I think you're right, and I worry that writing skills will suffer because it's not widely taught.
So do I. My son can, but doesn't.
I haven't written in cursive for over 50 years. I can print faster just as illegibly.
But is it actually a case of . . . "or"?
This topic has become more relevant than it was a week ago. If there is a common expression that applies to this, it would be "I told you so,"
Another suggestion: limiting the amount of time a defeated president remains in office until the next president in inaugurated.
Agreed. Inauguration used to be in March, because travel was so slow. Not the case today.
The outgoing POTUS should only have limited powers and no access to the nuclear football.
True.
Pelosi Wants to Keep Nukes Out of Donald Trump's Hands. There's Nothing She Can Do
The outgoing POTUS should only have limited powers and no access to the nuclear football.
True.
Pelosi Wants to Keep Nukes Out of Donald Trump's Hands. There's Nothing She Can Do
You told us so!
When posted two weeks ago this article was prescient...and more correct than any of us knew at the time.
The last 4 years... correction, the last 12 years demonstrate why we need... desperately need... cooperation not tribalism.