The Transition Period for Administration change in the U.S.

For those outside the U.S.-and the majority of Americans- there is little understanding in the one month delay from the election of the President by the Electoral College and swearing in of the new President.

In most Parliamentary systems, the new P.M. has his 'feet on the desk' within days. He's the new CEO virtually right off the bat.

The U.S. has always prided itself with peaceful transitions of political leaders. During this transition period, the outgoing President usually is considered-and considers himself- 'lame-duck'. He doesn't to try to implement new policy as he no longer has the mandate.

Apparently, Obama has broken with that tradition. Numerous Presidential decrees, changes in international policies, such as the abstention of the U.S. on the last and latest U.N. efforts to rein in Israel. Now add in an international 'summit' of 70 nations scheduled for Jan. 15, to decide the 'fate' of Israel. Five days before the new President is sworn in. Coincidence? Obviously not. Even Hillary would not have been as a Pro-Islamist super-state as Obama. Hence, the timing of this cabal.

To be fair, It also looks like Trump also isn't waiting for that transition period to conclude, either. Trump was instrumental is direct talks with Egypt to delay the latest vote at the U.N.. It almost worked.

The backlash on the Obama abstention at the U.N. has crossed party lines with calls for de-funding the U.N.-nothing new there- to outright leaving the U.N.-premature, IMO- and likely will be reversed via pressure, politically and economically from the Trump Administration.

Any new accord this summit reaches will be treated similarly.

As economic sanctions have already been proposed on Israeli Corporations, counter-sanctions will be forthcoming from the U.S. if implemented.

As Israel has never been in a stronger position in it's history, the political moves are the only avenue remaining and are the last gasp efforts of the 'New World Order' - really misnamed as it is, in reality, the old world order on steroids- to implement/preserve it's control.

Interesting times ahead....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
For those outside the U.S.-and the majority of Americans- there is little understanding in the one month delay from the election of the President by the Electoral College and swearing in of the new President.

In most Parliamentary systems, the new P.M. has his 'feet on the desk' within days. He's the new CEO virtually right off the bat.

Really?
I thought most every nation had this sort of transition period.

It would be insanely difficult to transition in a matter of days, and there is little advantage to it. Most nations are not two-party states, so coalitions based on the election result most formed in parliament to secure a legitimizing parliamentary majority, a final government platform must be agreed upon, ministers/secretaries must be chosen and so on.


Anyway .. I do not get why Obama is doing this. I DO get why it would be tempting, but he must see, that the more he deviate from the normal 'lame-duckness' the more he provides justification for the coming administration to dismantle his doings.

I see little gain in providing the Republicans with talking points about him 'disrespecting the democratic process', and surely that is exactly what he does. That just seems counterproductive to me.

a reply to: DupontDeux


I'd agree it's counterproductive to the overall mechanism.


Bottom line is Obama isn't concerned about any consequences it may produce and may, in fact, take pleasure in it. As Trump has already campaigned on the fact he would undo Obama's apparent agenda, that in itself, may be enough of a motivation.


As far as transitions go, it is Constitutional law that the out-going President remains in power for the next 30 days. Not so in any Parliamentary system I'm aware of. Simply put, outside the U.S,, the new P.M. is in charge during the transition. In the U.S. the old President is. Why this is so, the reasoning behind it, I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You might be right about OBama's motivations, but it still strikes me as odd.

Here in Denmark the constitution says that the new parliament (which elects the PM), is to meet 12 workdays after the election, so albeit not 30 days, we too have a constitutional transition period. I guess I just thought it was common as it makes sense.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
As far as transitions go, it is Constitutional law that the out-going President remains in power for the next 30 days. Not so in any Parliamentary system I'm aware of. Simply put, outside the U.S,, the new P.M. is in charge during the transition. In the U.S. the old President is. Why this is so, the reasoning behind it, I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer.

It comes down to the sheer size of the country.
Under eighteenth century conditions, it might take most of that time for the new President-elect to travel from the place where he had been living to take up residence in Washington. So the original interval was even longer than it is now. The election crisis of 1877, which I looked at in another thread, was still going at the beginning of March (after an Electoral College meeting on December 6th). The interval was shortened in the twentieth century as a concession to the fact that people now had cars.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Apparently, Obama has broken with that tradition. Numerous Presidential decrees, changes in international policies, such as the abstention of the U.S. on the last and latest U.N. efforts to rein in Israel. Now add in an international 'summit' of 70 nations scheduled for Jan. 15, to decide the 'fate' of Israel. Five days before the new President is sworn in. Coincidence? Obviously not. Even Hillary would not have been as a Pro-Islamist super-state as Obama. Hence, the timing of this cabal.

Au contraire mon ami. Time for a history lesson.
Midnight Judges Act

In the nineteen days between passage of this Act and the conclusion of his administration, President Adams quickly filled as many of the newly created circuit judgeships as possible. The new judges were known as the Midnight Judges because Adams was said to be signing their appointments at midnight prior to President Thomas Jefferson's inauguration. The famous Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison[2] involved one of these "midnight" appointments, although it was an appointment of a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, which was authorized under a different Act of Congress, not the Judiciary Act.

Petty politics like this is an American tradition.

a reply to: nwtrucker


It doesn't look like a transition to me, it looks more like business as usual, because I'm not leaving.
The last time this sort of thing happened in a "Democracy" was in New Zealand when Muldoon stalled the Lange Government, When the New Government took over he had to tell all the Embassies to use their Credit cards because they were totally broke.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Thanks for the data.

However, this one example makes for a 'tradition'? I think not. At least not in my living memory. Certainly Judicial appointments don't have the impact of international policy changes that go back at least 40 years. Especially with no mandate.

By the way, Adam's move was AFTER empowerment via the 'ACT' as it says. That IS a form of empowerment. It implies consent from the Legislative Branch of which Obama has none.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Just trying to show that it happened in the past, even among our founding fathers who we hold in such esteem. Clearly the situation doesn't align perfectly with the past (it never does anyways). So that should go without saying.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


A wee bit of a stretch, but valid in the sense that politicians, in general, can't be trusted....

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: nwtrucker

You might be right about OBama's motivations, but it still strikes me as odd.

Here in Denmark the constitution says that the new parliament (which elects the PM), is to meet 12 workdays after the election, so albeit not 30 days, we too have a constitutional transition period. I guess I just thought it was common as it makes sense.

During that 12 working day transition, does the sitting P.M. still retain control? If so, is there any history of the outgoing P.M.s making political decisions or acts that clearly went against the mandate of the incoming P.M.?

I think the Obama Administration is on "Plan B" because a Democrat lost the election.

Scorched Earth is the plan.

We are seeing evidence already.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I think the Obama Administration is on "Plan B" because a Democrat lost the election.

Scorched Earth is the plan.

We are seeing evidence already.

Sure is possible, while I'd like to think this is fixable by the incoming Administration, this one could, conceivably, get out of hand. Add in a few more similar moves before the inauguration and things could get very tough for Trump and Co..

a reply to: nwtrucker


What would happen if just before the inauguration Trump got arrested on some trumped up charge, pun intended. Or even a real charge they could prove.???

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: nwtrucker


What would happen if just before the inauguration Trump got arrested on some trumped up charge, pun intended. Or even a real charge they could prove.???

We've heard the extremes on both sides. assassination- one or the other- arrests-one or the other- martial law, on and on.

None are impossible. None. Yet, the machine that is D.C. and everyone who relies on it, do not want it broken, I'm betting. Life gets unpredictable for those in the 'comfort zones'. Not their specialty.... Precedents would be set for the next winner to do similarly. Decorum must be maintained....

At least, I hope.

Alternative theory: Obama and Trump are working together, Obama is simply setting things up for Trump to come in and take charge. The two of them apparently get along pretty well.