As Krugman points out, the situation in the US is a pretty sad sight, with the lamest of lame duck presidents fiddling while the economy burns. This is a pretty ridiculous situation. Why not do what they do with buildings and start using them before they are officially opened?
What would be wrong with the incoming president having executive power from the time it is clear they are the president elect but, if the (somewhat strange to our eyes) tradition of not naming one’s cabinet until after the election is to be retained, the president elect could operate by directing existing executive officers as well as replacing them if he wished (with temporary or permanent appointments). Sitting around till well into January while the place goes to the dogs seems barmy.
Perhaps at the end of his term Obama might offer such an arrangement to his replacement. It can’t be much fun sitting around waiting for the new guy to take over in any event.
Put simply, it would require a constitutional amendment for the Presidential-elect to exercise any executive power before inauguration day and it probably wouldn’t succeed.
The electoral college doesn’t meet to formally elect the President until the first Wednesday after the second Monday in December and its decision must then be formally affirmed by a joint sitting of Congress.
Bush could voluntarily give up office before January 20 but the only constitutionally valid successor until January 20 would be Dick Cheney.
Under your scenario, who would be Commander in Chief if the US was attacked in December?
Well, I don’t supposed much could be forced under current arrangements. But in a time of crisis when there’s been a decisive victory by one candidate, I can’t see why one couldn’t and shouldn’t bring forward the formalities of the electoral college etc. One would then have the president elect sworn in ASAP and the inauguration could go ahead as the formal part of this process on 20 Jan. Obama would be commander in chief once sworn in.
But presumably one would have trouble if the other side wouldn’t play ball.
So at the end of his reign, Obama could initiate a process (involving if necessary a constitutional amendment) whereby he would relinquish his formal role as president a few days after the election is decided, and could become an advisor to the new President with his cabinet being in a similar position and replaceable at the instigation of the new president. This interregnum would then end on 20th Jan with the inauguration by which time it would be assumed that the new cabinet would be in place.
I think you are suffering from critical-stage Obamamania. Can we please wait until he does one single thing, apart from perhaps writing his own books, differently, before we get carried away?
Otherwise I’m afraid for your health!
Patrick,
This has nothing to do with any enthusiasm for Obama. I’m pleased that he’s won and as apprehensive as anyone else as to whether he’ll be any good.
Why is it supposed to be such a sign of ill health to say that something that’s obviously dysfunctional should be fixed in a straightforward way?
We should not imagine that GWB is idly twiddling his thumbs. He’ll be working on his presidential pardon list. Convicted publisher, Conrad Black has his hand up and we can bet Republican ex-senator and bag man/enforcer, Tom DeLay can’t be far behind. My point is that the interegnum between presidencies cuts both ways and if Barrack were to be given a say this aspect of US politics would get very messy indeed.
Pablo, Patrick,
You’re not both lawyers by any chance are you? I’m working on a theory that lawyers are somehow hard wired to look at something – however dysfunctional and however straightforwardly fixed – and say that there’s really more to it. They’ll say that the existing dysfunctional arrangements must exist for a good reason and then pretty much free associate from there. One way of doing this is to make up all sorts of reasons why changing the existing arrangement would be hard.
Anyway, just for the record, and without saying that anyone will have the good will or good sense to do any of this, I’d like to say that I can’t see what’s hard about any of it in terms of coming up with alternative practical arrangements. If it is clear who the president elect is, you bring forward any formalities you need, and you get yourself a new president sworn in. Then he’s the president. He can immediately replace his cabinet or take his time about it.
Oh – and if there are pardons to be given, well there are a few days between the election and the changeover – they can do them then.
Any other problems?
I plead the fifth Nicholas. To be honest I tend to agree with your argument. It is practical and given current events quite crucial. But unlikely to be adopted for a number of reasons that have more to do with history, protocol and the deferential way the US public treat their ex-presidents. From my reading of it Obama took himself out of the presidential loop. I think that disappointed a lot of people and may in retrospect have been a mistake.
I don’t really have any problem with changing the existing arrangement – I personally like your idea. I just took (probably irrational) exception to your suggestion that Obama might change this, and the (probably non-existent) implication that he might do something about this, even though no-one else ever had, simply because he is Obama.
Fwiw, I certainly wish him well, if nothing else it would be extremely irrational in the circumstances not to!
My reasoning was not that Obama is the selfless type – though I think that despite his vanity he does humility better than any politician I’ve seen in a while, not that that requires anything much given the amazing parsimony with humility of almost every politician I’ve ever seen. (He seems to do magnanimity in victory quite well come to think of it too, which is nice, though it’s less rare amongst pollies – Bob Hawke was quite magnanimous in victory as was Churchill – I can’t think of a truly humble politician since Lincoln, though no doubt they’ve existed since then.)
It seems to me that after 7 three quarter years, it would make sense for any president to fix this up, because what he’s giving away is peanuts in the scheme of things – three months of the lamest of lame duck periods of his presidency – and what he gains is much more – history’s gratitude and (thus) honour. If GWB had any sense . . . well there’s an obvious objection to following that line of inquiry very far, but I think you get my drift.
Someone else pointing out the obvious.
Ha, no doubt!!
Obama is bright enough to know that the next few months are not going to see an economic upturn in the USA — no matter what happens. If he keeps his hands firmly off the wheel and touches nothing at all then maybe the crash will be worse, maybe not, but at least Obama’s hands will be clean and what happens won’t be his doing.
It makes sense to me that Bush should have to live with his own legacy, in the full.