The election seems like old news at this point and yet we are still over a month away from inauguration day. Donald Ritchie, author of Reporting from Washington: The History of the Washington Press Corps, Our Constitution, and The Congress of the United States: A Student Companion, looks at this lag in historical perspective. Ritchie, who has been Associate Historian of the United States Senate for more than three decades, explains why a President-elect may need this time prepare to take over.
Many Americans, and the rest of the world, wonder why so much time elapses between the U.S. presidential election in November and the inauguration on January 20. Why not reform the system and reduce the interval? The answer is we did reform it–the interregnum used to last twice as long.
Under the original Constitutional scheme, the new president took office on March 4, four months after the November elections. The new Congress would not convene until the first Monday in December, thirteen months after the election. This made sense to the framers in the eighteenth century, when transportation was slow and treacherous. The incoming president would call the Senate into special session for a week in March to confirm his cabinet, and then have the rest of the year to get his administration underway free from congressional interference.
By the twentieth century, the old system had grown obsolete. The second session of every Congress did not meet until after the next election had taken place, meaning that senators and representatives who had been defeated or retired came back as lame ducks. They proved especially susceptible to lobbyists, and since the short session had to end at midnight on March 3, they could easily filibuster to block needed legislation. George Norris, a progressive Republican from Nebraska who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, led the effort to amend the Constitution and move the presidential inauguration from March 4 to January 20, and the opening of Congress from December up to January 3. By staggering the closing dates of the terms of the president and Congress, the amendment also eliminated the need for outgoing presidents to spend their last night on Capitol Hill signing and vetoing last-minute legislation.
Beyond getting rid of most lame duck sessions, Norris’ amendment halved the transition between presidential administrations, from four months down to two. Transitions had grown increasingly awkward. During peaceful and prosperous times, the incoming president had to keep out of the way of his predecessor. Herbert Hoover, for instance, sailed off to South America after the 1928 election to avoid upstaging Calvin Coolidge’s final months in office. During periods of conflict and crisis, however, the interregnum cost the nation needed leadership. Outgoing presidents tried to coerce their successors into continuing their policies, as James Buchanan attempted with Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and Herbert Hoover did with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Lincoln and Roosevelt wisely avoided committing themselves to failed ideas, but these impasses did nothing to resolve the crises they faced, which grew worse by the time they took office.
The transition between Hoover and Roosevelt took place against a dramatic collapse of the American financial system, with the nation’s banking system shutting down, credit drying up, and unemployment soaring. Congress had passed the Twentieth Amendment in March 1932 and sent it to the states, but the necessary three quarters of the states did not ratify it until January 23, 1933, three days after the new date for inaugurations, making it too late for that year. The first inauguration on January 20 took place in 1937.
That last long interregnum convinced everyone that a shorter transition was preferable, but is the current system still too long? In a parliamentary system such as Great Britain’s, the new prime minister can move into 10 Downing Street the day after the election and the new cabinet can show up ready for work. The American system of separation of powers, however, makes no provision for a shadow cabinet in waiting. The president-elect needs time to select cabinet members and a host of other executive branch nominees who will be confirmed by the Senate. It may not do the new president any favor to shorten the interregnum further, although when times are tough the inauguration still looks awfully far away.
I thought you all might be getting a little fatigued with your Presidential race (I may be wrong) so I thought that this week’s Very Short Introductions column might come as a welcome break. Dr Tony Wright, the Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase in Staffordshire, is the author of British Politics: A Very Short Introduction. He has kindly answered a few questions on politics on this side of the pond.
OUP: You talk in the opening chapter of your book about the confusion between Britain, England, and the United Kingdom. Eight years into devolution, do you think the confusion has improved or got worse?
TONY WRIGHT: There is a lot more attention to this issue now, inevitably so. Independence is on the agenda for Scotland now that the nationalists are in government, and there is more focus on the English question too in terms of England’s place in the union and a growth in Englishness. It is no longer possible to use words interchangeably as it once was. But much is still confused!
OUP: “The British enjoy a marvellous constitutional illiteracy. They think pluralism is a lung disease. This is not because they have no constitution… but because they have a constitution of a peculiar kind.” Can you briefly explain our peculiar constitution for our non-British readers?
WRIGHT: It’s the peculiarities of a constitution that has been made up over time, adjusting to circumstances, and never taken in hand or written down in a joined-up way. That’s why it’s been called a ‘political’ constitution. Whether we can go on like that in the future is less clear than it once was.
OUP: Is Britain still “the home of strong government”?
WRIGHT: In key respects, yes. There are more checks now (such as the Human Rights Act) but executive power is still largely in place. Just compare the different responses to the financial crisis in the UK and USA. In the latter Congress was central - in Britain, Parliament was not even sitting!
OUP: Back in 2003 you wrote a piece for The Guardian newspaper calling for an end to political spin. Has this been achieved?
WRIGHT: I called for an end to outrageous and excessive spin, and I do think it has been reined back from then. But spin of some kind is intrinsic to politics - it just has to be kept in check and not allowed into areas (like the civil service and official information and statistics) where it should have no place.
OUP: Once people have read your British Politics: A Very Short Introduction, which books would you point them too next?
WRIGHT: I would suggest Anthony King, The British Constitution and David Marquand, Britain since 1918: The Strange Career of British Democracy.
ShareThis
Sotirios A. Barber is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and James E. Fleming is The Honorable Frank R. Kenison Distinguished Scholar in Law at Boston University School of Law. Together they have written Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions which examines the fundamental inquiries that arise in interpreting constitutional law. Below they respond to a Stanley Fish article about their new book.
As the authors of Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions, we thank Professor Stanley Fish for his generous reference to the book as a guide through the long-standing debate on approaches to constitutional interpretation. (“Does Constitutional Theory Matter?”) We write to express more than gratitude, however, for we are puzzled by two elements of Fish’s piece: his denial that theories of interpretation matter and his description of our position in the debate. (more…)
Share This
Former Republican Congressman, founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation, and national chairman of the American Conservative Union, Mickey Edwards is the author of Reclaiming Conservatism: How A Great American Political Movement Got Lost- and How It Can Find It Way Back. He attended the State of the Union address Monday night and shared his reaction with us yesterday. Today Edwards wonders why the Republican members of Congress were so enthusiastic at the SOTU Monday. Read Edwards other OUPblog posts here.
For Republican members of Congress, the man who delivered a State of the Union speech Monday night was not merely a President of the United States – the head of one of the other branches of the federal government – but, more importantly, he was their team captain. (more…)
Share This
Mark V. Tushnet is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is the author of fifteen books, most recently Out Of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns. Out Of Range is honest guide to both sides of the 2nd amendment debate and an insightful analysis of how our view of the 2nd amendment reflects our sense of ourselves as a people. Part of Oxford’s Inalienable Rights Series, Tushnet’s book challenges our views of one of our most controversial freedoms, the right to bear arms. In the post below Tushnet lays out the argument. Be sure to check back tomorrow for part two.
With Constitution Day today, it seems like a good time to talk about a constitutional issue that’s likely to get to the Supreme Court’s attention pretty soon: the Second Amendment. Shortly after it opens its term in October the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear an appeal from the District of Columbia challenging a court of appeals decision striking down the city’s ban on handgun possession as a violation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right to keep and bear arms.” (more…)
Share This
ONE OF OUR [U.S.] GREAT WEAPONS CAN'T BE TAKEN LIGHTLY
By Mike Levine
Times Herald-Record
January 14, 2007
Wednesday, December 6, 1989 - In China, pro-democracy students are secretly quoting Jefferson. Lech Walesa said Poles look to Lincoln's writings for inspiration. The freedom movements in Czechoslovakia and East Germany are among the century's great stories.
Liberty is suddenly the worldwide rage.
But is freedom still an American passion? We fly the flag, all right, and in our last presidential election, the Pledge of Allegiance was a big issue. Yet surveys suggest that if the Bill of Rights were voted on today, Americans would turn it down. We're said to have grown intolerant and jaded.
To find out if the principles of freedom are as alive in the mid-Hudson as in East Berlin, I wrote up a ``limits of freedom'' opinion survey and passed it out to 24 seniors at Middletown High School. I also gave the survey to two dozen mid-Hudson adults.
You might want to take it yourself. Remember, this is not a ``right or wrong'' test, but an opinion survey.
1) Freedom of speech should NOT be permitted if it: - damages the credibility of the government.
Agree . . . Disagree
- promotes beliefs that go against religious teachings.
Agree . . . Disagree
- ridicules the president.
Agree . . . Disagree
- voices opposition to any portion of the U.S. Constitution.
Agree . . . Disagree
- defends the burning of the American flag.
Agree . . . Disagree
- only presents one side of an issue.
Agree . . . Disagree
- denies the existence of God.
Agree . . . Disagree
2) If a law enforcement officer suspects someone of a crime, he should be able to arrest that person until evidence is gathered.
Agree . . . Disagree
3) If a person has evidence that would incriminate him in a crime, he should be required to confess.
Agree . . . Disagree
4) Those demonstrating in the streets against official government policy should be arrested.
Agree . . . Disagree
5) If a majority of Americans believe a book is unfair to our nation's reputation, it should be banned.
Agree . . . Disagree
6) Because a majority of Americans are Christian, it should be the official religion of the United States.
Agree . . . Disagree
7) Police should be able to arrest people who they believe are likely to commit crimes.
Agree . . . Disagree
In this questionnaire, each ``agree'' answer was a vote to eliminate freedoms already guaranteed in the Constitution. A ``disagree'' answer was a vote to sustain our Constitutional freedoms.
For libertarians, the good news is that both the high school seniors and the adults voted to keep virtually every freedom (both groups had similar results).
The bad news is a little more than half the respondents rejected the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Question #3). They said a person should be made to incriminate himself.
More than Over a third of the students said a book that unfairly portrays America should be banned. More than Over a quarter of the respondents said opinions should be stifled that deny the existence of God or that poke fun at the president.
Ironically, a third of the people also said speaking out against any portion of the Constitution should be banned.
There's no intent to lecture here. Patriotic Americans disagree as to the limits of freedom.
But when the Cold War was won, it turned out that America's great weapon wasn't guns or bombs.
It was freedom itself.
I talked about this over at Mahablog and pointed out that perhaps the President could take office immediately after the start of the New Year.
Either that or make Shadow Cabinets legal in this country.
If we wanted to speed up the transition even more, here’s a perfectly moral, legal, and constitutial way do so:
Nancy Pelosi calls the House of Representatives back into session, and steps aside as Speaker. Since constitutional scholars agree that the Speaker of the House need not be a member of that body, they elect Barak Obama to that post. Then George Bush and Dick Cheney both resign. The Speaker of the House is next in line, and becomes President to fill out the remainder of Bush’s term. Obama can still be re-elected in 2012 because the 22nd Amendment permits that for a person serving out another President’s term for less than two years. However, Joe Biden can’t become Vice-President immediately by the same means, but he could quickly take that office if he’s nominated by Obama and a majority of both Houses of Congress approve, as the 25th Amendment provides. Anybody see any holes in that (other than Bush and Cheney are hunkered down for the duration)?
Otherwise, what are we waiting for?
For foreigners looking at the US transition the question about length is related to just how many positions are required.
The U.S. is encumbered by a system of patronage that permeates its bureaucracy. More than 9,000 jobs - listed in the so-called “plum book” - must be filled by an incoming administration, not only major offices such as attorney-general, secretary of state and secretary of the treasury, but in some cases much more junior positions, including clerical staff.
Among the many challenges facing the new administration of Barack Obama after Jan. 20, then, is the appointment of a deputy division director, low level waste management and decommissioning, in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. In Treasury, Mr. Obama must settle on an assayer (San Francisco) for the U.S. Mint.
This arcane system hampers an administration’s effectiveness for as much as two years as those jobs are being filled. The numbers of political appointees may be small compared to its vast civilian bureaucracy, but the U.S. should still follow the lead of most other Western countries and professionalize the ranks of its bureaucracy at the lower levels.
This measure would help, but they would not entirely eliminate the problem of a power vacuum in Washington. Two and a half months is too long. The U.S. needs to have its new president in office sooner. If the problem relates, as some suggest, to the logistics of staging the elaborate inauguration celebrations, then the ceremonial should come later, in the way that a coronation comes later. If the outmoded Electoral College system is to endure, then Mr. Obama should become president the moment the vote of the electors is announced. The Twentieth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be amended to allow for the oath of office to be administered promptly. The ceremonial of Inauguration Day could wait until Jan. 20.
Americans like to think of themselves as citizens of a young country. It’s time they started, then, to behave like one by modernizing their democratic institutions.
While I certainly wish that the transition could take place faster, and I certainly think that due to modern technology, we should be able to speed it up again, one needs only to look back 8 years to show just how long it might take to figure out who actually won an election and show that the President-elect can very easily not be decided by November 15 or December 1 or whatever arbitrary new date we choose.
It seems that the Electoral College and the entire system of selecting the President would need an overhaul before we get into moving up the date. Not that I’m arguing against that mind you…
To Don Sherfick above. Your idea was actually seriously considered by Woodrow Wilson in 1916. He worried that if he lost the election he could not speak with the country’s backing, particularly on matters of foreign policy. So he was going to appoint his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to Secretary of State, then resign along with the Vice President. Rules of succession at the time would have made Hughes the president. Wilson won, so we’ll never know how that would have worked out.
This is a though-provoking discussion of what must seem like a cumbersome system to much of the world. When you add in the now two-year campaign just to get the nomination, they probably wonder how we ever get any governing done.
Richard Smith’s observation about patronage suggests that a president elect might need more than two months to get ready to govern, but that would never fly. However, why not have the cabinet members and other appointees start serving on January 20 as temporary appointments. Those needing Senate confirmation would still require confirmation within the first year.