Skip to main content

Inauguration Day - Should It Be Today? How Distrust of Lame Ducks Changed Our Calendar

There's been a great deal of discussion about the 2nd amendment lately, but on this Inauguration Day, I'm thinking about the effectiveness of a different amendment - the 20th. For those without a pocket copy of the US Constitution handy, the 20th Amendment covers a few things, including presidential succession in cases where the President-Elect dies before taking office, but my questions surround a different part of the amendment - the first two sections moved the Presidential Inauguration from March 4 to January 20, and established January 3 as the first day for a new Congress.

President's box for the 2013 inaugural parade
The inauguration date was moved to January after concerns that the original date was too old-fashioned for a modern America. The logic was that modern transportation and communication (in 1932-33) meant that a new administration and Congress could take office more quickly than they could in the 18th century - moving the dates to January would allow our government to respond to national emergencies better, and lame duck sessions are hampered by the fact that some are uncomfortable with the idea of recently defeated officials making actions after a "change" election.  One of the examples often given to justify the amendment is the secession of Southern states upon Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860. Between the following January (what would have been inauguration date today) and his inauguration in March, seven states had seceded, a Confederate Constitution was created, and federal forts were seized.  The logic was that this growing crisis could have been more effectively managed had a newly elected President and Congress been in place, and not simply a lame duck group.  For several reasons, the outgoing president did not feel empowered to take action to stop the secession, and the Civil War was the result.

I've never heard a historian accuse James Buchanan of being a very effective president, particularly after states began to secede. He famously said to Lincoln on that Inauguration Day in 1861 that "if you are as happy entering the presidency as I am leaving it, then you are a very happy man" - he had not done much to keep the nation together. To me, that reveals that the problem was not the date of inauguration, but was a particular president's strategy and belief in federal authority.

At the other end of the Civil War is a case where Lincoln himself used the opportunity created by a lame duck Congress effectively - was able to get the 13th Amendment passed, leading to the eradication of slavery from the United States. The "win" from this legislative victory was one of the most important pieces of legislation in the nation's history. It was a story so powerful that the recent blockbuster film "Lincoln" captures that time of his presidency. Through various means, the President and his allies were able to convince a lame duck Congress, including several Democrats who had been recently voted out of office, to pass the 20th Amendment in January of 1865. (Democrats lost almost half of their House seats in that November 1864 election).

Let's fast-forward to a few weeks ago: the last Congress was famously ineffective, but in its final days was able to pass a bill (ATRA) to address the Fiscal Cliff crisis. While it wasn't the "grand bargain" that many hoped for (it was a temporary fix for many of the problems that were related to the "cliff") ATRA could not have been passed earlier.  Last fall, many hopes were on the lame-duck session as the one opportunity to pass key legislation from that Congress - the combination of the looming year-end deadline and the freedom from repercussions for the 39 Republicans that were leaving the House meant that a compromise bill was possible.  A similar situation gave us TARP in 2008 - it was controversial, but it was major legislation. The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010 was another lame duck achievement. In this era of paralyzing partisanship and unproductive Congresses, lame duck sessions are rare opportunities - a time when many veteran elected officials are free to vote their conscience and be productive.

One could argue that our reactions to major crises were harmed by the extended time between Election Day and Inauguration Day prior to the 20th Amendment, including the financial crisis that began the Great Depression. In fact, that event was largely responsible for the ratification of the 20th Amendment. The counterargument is that poor decision-making and a perceived lack of legitimacy were the real issues. If lame duck Congresses are able to create legislation on issues that were difficult or impossible to address before the last election, we may have an unintended negative side effect from this efficiency-focused amendment.

The related argument for the amendment is a philosophical one - that major pieces of legislation cannot be "the will of the people" if they are victories achieved with the votes of recently defeated legislators.  I disagree with this last point - as you might have gathered from "Ballot Measures: Lazy Legislation or True Democracy, Part I and Part II," I think that some "good government" reforms go too far - we need to elect leaders and who will get all of the facts and make the best decisions that they can from day one to the last hour that they are in office - in other words, they need to lead. Lame duck decisions are often criticized, but I know of no other job where it would be frowned upon to do your job while you remain on duty. We should ask no less of our legislators - these are our elected leaders and should be given room to lead while they are in office. I haven't heard of any serious proposal to eliminate lame duck sessions altogether - we acknowledge that new leaders need some transition time to learn about their new office before starting, and new legislators with little understanding of their offices and few relationships with their new colleagues cannot be expected to be as productive as their outgoing colleagues. I am wondering if we harmed legislative productivity by altering the mix - we lost a couple of key months where veteran leaders could be at their most productive.

Would a repeal of the first two clauses of the 20th Amendment fix all of the problems that contribute to the modern-day ineffectiveness of Congress? Would it always lead to a more effective legislature, especially in cases where there is a change in the party holding the presidency or a majority of either house in Congress? No, but this case reminds us that we should take all of the long-term consequences into account when we change the way that we do things.

Not only that, but changing back to the March 4 date would lead to much better weather on Inauguration Day. Parade watchers and observers would certainly benefit from that - it's currently 37 degrees in downtown DC. For those along the parade route (and not in a warm box like the one pictured up top) stay warm and have a Happy Inauguration Day.  Happy Martin Luther King Day as well - since that holiday is about hope for America's future, my hopes are that we have a productive 113th Congress and a productive second term for President Obama. We certainly have problems that need to be solved.

Do you like January Inaugurations?  Do you trust lame duck sessions of Congress and the legislation that they create?  Leave a comment below or @DrUrbanPolicy.


Popular posts from this blog

Removing Woodrow Wilson's Name from Princeton: Looking Back to Move Forward

I applaud the Princeton University Board of Trustees' decision yesterday to remove the name of Woodrow Wilson from the policy school and residential college that were formerly named for him. While this decision may appear sudden to some, the Board has carefully deliberated on this decision over a number  of years. For alumni like myself, the school's reputation as a place of a world-class education in public policy has long been at odds with the mixed legacy of its eponym. As the board states, "Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school whose scholars, students, and alumni must be firmly committed to combating the scourge of racism in all its forms."

Over the years, alumni have expressed varying levels of pride, discomfort and shame over the decision to continue this honor of having one of the nation's foremost policy schools named after Wilson.  He was the president of the university, a governor of the state and Preside…

The "Boom" in Golden Girls-Style Shared Housing: Where’s the Beef?

NBC, Touchstone Television and their partners should be proud– it has been 22 years since the final episode aired, yet the influence of The Golden Girlsmeans that every year reporters ask about the boom in “Golden Girls Housing.”  This form of shared housing receives a great amount of attention, but we'll miss the big picture if we look for big numbers.
For the last few years, I have looked at data from the Current Population Survey (analyzed by the AARP Public Policy Institute) to count households that are all female (or all male) with at least one non-related housemate or roommate, no spouses, and no one under 50 in the home. This is the classic “Golden Girls” formula.  
The result has become familiar: a very small portion of the population lives in a “golden” situation, around one percent.  The small numbers of people in those situations means that it’s hard to figure out whether it has become more popular.  Though the percentage appears to be holding steady, the number of golden…

Efficiency and Affordability: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

I haven't been posting often lately, as things have been pretty hectic.   I did receive a question the other day about  topic that I haven't spoken about here:  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and it inspired me to write a quick post.  These are sometimes known as "accessory apartments," "mother-in-law suites" or "granny flats" - they are ways to provide more housing options in existing neighborhoods by allowing homeowners to build additional units on their lots.  ADU is a catch-all term for all of these situations - either units attached to existing homes or placed somewhere else on the property, say over a garage or a stand-alone in the backyard. 

They are part of the range of housing options that help to ensure that people of all ages, including older adults, can meet their needs.  AARP's model ordinance on ADUs was written by staff at the American Planning Association and was an attempt to find a set of regulations that would meet livabili…