Transition EO - Will Pres Elect be taking the helm sooner???

[FirstLight]

This thread was very educational yesterday, BUT I still don't understand if that mkeans that Obama (or mcfuck, which we hope wil NOT be stealing this thing) will be taking the helm any sooner.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4204001

I see bush probably running out the back door of the White House with his luggage on Nov 5th...and by the looks of the financial meltdown, I am sure he wil ahve plenty of silver to Hock once he gets to Paraguay, too.

But seriously. Barring the complete demise of the market and some Martial Law stunt. Will he just run for it and have Obama come is and start mopping up the mess? Is there a stipulation in the Constitution that says it HAS to be Jan 20??? Or ois it posible that we will have a rapid change of powers?

thanks,

[Kittycat]

1. I have no doubt that Bush's plan is to

hand it all over as soon as possible. He'll be there in name only, but likely transition quickly. It will be the one the very few (if any) things in his presidency that I think he's going to do right. It might be for his own selfish reasons, but I think he knows it's over - and wants out.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Obama won't be president until the January 20, 2008.

Obama can ask Congress to pass legislation before then.

Obama can ask Bush officials to do things before then.

Obviously, the above groups can say No.

[izquierdista]

The ceremony will be the 20th

But if you expect Dubya to do anything after November 5, except issue pardons, you are mistaken.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. January 20th is the constitutional day... that was moved actually from the spring

of the next year

That said...

I suspect, and cannot prove it... that there is a gentleman's agreement going on

The same happened in 1932... when the FDR team essentially took over the treasury three days after the election... these days... I expect Obama's team at Treasury within hours

They don't have the authority yet... but they will exercise it to a point

Remember The Treasury Secretary has to pass Senate Muster and that can only happen under the New Congress too

[FirstLight]

5. Thanks for clearing that up...

The sooner the better As far as I'm concerned.

I just want Obama to get his "steady hand" in there and start this cleanup...!

Every day until the election is another day on pins and needles - and while I used to be afraid that chimpy would declare martial law and forego elections...I honestly think he realy wants to cut and run by now

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. The EO calmed those fears as well

and given that he speaks the stock exchange tumbles... he should shut up from now on

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Nope. We have a 3 1/2 month crash to look forward to.

This Christmas will probably be the gloomiest in years. Next Christmas will probably be much worse.

--p!

[Clear Blue Sky]

6. This is standard procedure for transitions.

[malaise]

8. Standard is signing the EO after the elections

but we cleared that up yesterday.

[jkshaw]

9. Paul Krugman suggested that the new

administration take over on November 5th because the crisis cannot wait until January 2009. I've tried to find the reference and can't. It might have been in one of his short blogs.

I wondered at the time if this sort of thing would be even possible, though it would make sense. Remember, FDR had to wait until March of the following year before he could start working on the economy, and by the time he could get working the economy was truly in the cellar.

[happyslug]

10. Under the Constitution Obama can NOT be PResident till 1/20/2009

The big exception is if Cheney should resign and Bush names Obama as VP, once Obama is confirmed by the House and Senate (Only position that requires BOTH houses approval) bush can then resign and Obama is President. I just do NOT see that happening, they is to much Bush can do from November 5th, 2008 till January 20th, 2009 for him to give up that power (And I do NOT se Cheney resigning either, for the same Reason).

Amendment XXV that set up the right of the President to appoint a New VP if the VP position is no longer filled (only done twice, once by Nixon when Agnew Resigned do to his taking bribes while Governor of Maryland, and then Ford when he became President upon Nixon's Resignation to avoid Impeachment for Watergate. Nixon named Ford, Ford Names Nelson Rockefeller.

For Amendment XXV passed in 1967:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxv.html


January 20th is the day of inauguration since passage of the XX amendment to the Constitution, it also cleared up when the inauguration takes place (Noon Washington DC time):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html

As to FDR taking over the Treasury on the days after he won the election, he actually declined the offer by Hoover to do so. The worse of the bank crisis had NOT yet run and any solution proposed during the period between the election in November and the first day of his administration (Which was March 4, 1932 for it was BEFORE passage of the XX amendment) would have been "tainted" by being associated with Hoover, so FDR stayed away from any active control over the Administration so he could start anew on March 4th, 1932.

From the FDR Presidential Library:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm

Now this is from a gold bug web site but if you read between the lines you will see FDR did NOT want to be involved with Hoover's administration at all:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/laborde011305.html

Another right wing site with the same claim but more date (Read it for the Data NOT the Argument):
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/44414


Now both web sites says FDR did this to smear Hoover, I doubt it, Hoover's name was already , and it was that reputation that FDR did NOT want to share with Hoover. Thus the refusal of FDR to deal with Hoover and the Refusal of the Democratic Congress to deal with Hoover.

The wisdom of FDR's action is best seen in the subsequent improvement in the Economy after March 4th, 1932:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HjeMj1DB6w8C&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=Bank+Crisis+of+1933&source=web&ots=uJaqXiKuD0&sig=7WQTEBG5XIdGL9j-WFHconx3jUk