<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Does the Transition Take So Long?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/</link>
	<description>Academic insights for the thinking world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-149003</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-149003</guid>
		<description>One Nation Under Who?

Although the inaguation of Obama will indicate the nation has moved on; despite some who say we have not made progress, I hope we can get back to &quot;all the people&quot; scenerio afterward. Yes. It is a big deal for African Americans. But most act like Obama in office is somehow going to bring more benefits to them just because they are African American. Think again. The minute there is a hint of that, the &quot;majority of folks&quot; who voted for him will also be the first to turn on him. I have a &quot;wait-and-see&quot; attitude about the newly-elected president (or should I say The Clintons again). When Hillary lost to Obama, you don&#039;t think there was some back-door deal in the works long before &quot;he&quot; decided to appoint her to his cabinet. He is a figure-head - pure and simple. Clinton and her policies will be running the show - AGAIN! Let&#039;s just hope &quot;she&quot; keeps our country safer than her husband did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One Nation Under Who?</p>
<p>Although the inaguation of Obama will indicate the nation has moved on; despite some who say we have not made progress, I hope we can get back to &#8220;all the people&#8221; scenerio afterward. Yes. It is a big deal for African Americans. But most act like Obama in office is somehow going to bring more benefits to them just because they are African American. Think again. The minute there is a hint of that, the &#8220;majority of folks&#8221; who voted for him will also be the first to turn on him. I have a &#8220;wait-and-see&#8221; attitude about the newly-elected president (or should I say The Clintons again). When Hillary lost to Obama, you don&#8217;t think there was some back-door deal in the works long before &#8220;he&#8221; decided to appoint her to his cabinet. He is a figure-head &#8211; pure and simple. Clinton and her policies will be running the show &#8211; AGAIN! Let&#8217;s just hope &#8220;she&#8221; keeps our country safer than her husband did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry Walbert</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-148465</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Walbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-148465</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.  </p>
<p>Richard Smith&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Newberry</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-148407</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Newberry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-148407</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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&#039;ll never know how that would have worked out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;ll never know how that would have worked out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LogopolisMike</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-148404</link>
		<dc:creator>LogopolisMike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-148404</guid>
		<description>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&#039;m arguing against that mind you...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;m arguing against that mind you&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Smith</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-148402</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:47:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-148402</guid>
		<description>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 &quot;plum book&quot; - 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&#039;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&#039;s time they started, then, to behave like one by modernizing their democratic institutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For foreigners looking at the US transition the question about length is related to just how many positions are required.</p>
<p>The U.S. is encumbered by a system of patronage that permeates its bureaucracy. More than 9,000 jobs &#8211; listed in the so-called &#8220;plum book&#8221; &#8211; 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This arcane system hampers an administration&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Americans like to think of themselves as citizens of a young country. It&#8217;s time they started, then, to behave like one by modernizing their democratic institutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Sherfick</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-148399</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Sherfick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-148399</guid>
		<description>If we wanted to speed up the transition even more, here&#039;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&#039;s term. Obama can still be re-elected in 2012 because the 22nd Amendment permits that for a person serving out another President&#039;s term for less than two years. However, Joe Biden can&#039;t become Vice-President immediately by the same means, but he could quickly take that office if he&#039;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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If we wanted to speed up the transition even more, here&#8217;s a perfectly moral, legal, and constitutial way do so:</p>
<p>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&#8217;s term. Obama can still be re-elected in 2012 because the 22nd Amendment permits that for a person serving out another President&#8217;s term for less than two years. However, Joe Biden can&#8217;t become Vice-President immediately by the same means, but he could quickly take that office if he&#8217;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)?</p>
<p>Otherwise, what are we waiting for?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MNPundit</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/12/inaguration/comment-page-1/#comment-148398</link>
		<dc:creator>MNPundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2502#comment-148398</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>Either that or make Shadow Cabinets legal in this country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
