I sooo pit the lack of room to complete a thread title.
Anyway, when a person of the opposite party has won the presidential election, does the current party often choose the period between winning and inauguration to push through those policies which are closest to its ideals?
I ask because I’ve heard that the Bush Administration has passed a law which makes internet wagering illegal as of the 20th of January 2009. This has the potential to stop-dead the company I work for and force me onto the unemployment register.
Swearing…
Fuck fuckfuckbushfuckfacemonkeyfuckingbushgeorgefuckingturettesfuckofuckfarfuckbush in the arse with a big shaved tree repeatedly until I am satisfied that retribution has been sufficiently delt.
quick edit: Sorry, I forgot that coloured text doesn’t get hidden in spoiler tags.
If you are particularly empathic then you might have read my posts and been able to detect the tiniest subtlest hint of slight disappointment at current events.
First, presidential administrations don’t pass laws, the Congress does, with the assent of the president. Congress is currently in a lame-duck session, with Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A lame-duck president without a majority in the legislature has very little chance of getting anything substantive passed.
Secondly, the SAFE Port Act, provisions of which banned certain transactions relating to Internet gambling, was passed and signed into law way back in 2006. It had about as much actual effect on online gambling as clowns have on cancer.
I hope that’s the case. Thanks friedo. Our customers are fretting over this, but my suspicions that we ourselves should not be fretting are closer to confirmed.
this is not entirely accurate pres can and is making many admin policy decisions that have the force of law and can only be overturned by congress Obama and dems are working on an omnibus bill to undue all the fuck ups the current admin is trying to push thru can’t link posting from iPhone
No, policy is implemented by the administration through executive order. An EO has the force of law when the president is acting under discretionary authority granted to him by Congress or the Constitution. Any EO can be undone by a successive one. Obama’s transition team is studying Bush’s EO history and working on an omnibus order to repeal the portions they don’t like.
Congress can, at its own discretion, create new law that has the effect of nullifying an executive order. In general they’d need a veto-proof supermajority to do this, since it’s unlikely that a president would sign such a bill.
If it was as simple as you make it seem to overturn these things why is the Bush admin cranking them out like crazy if they think they will just be overturned? The Dems may be on to something with the omnibus bill but it may not work.
In theory, if this were a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president as a lame duck (with a Republican coming in), Congress could pass laws and have them signed by the president before January 20. The new Congress could repeal them.
As a practical matter, the Republicans in the Senate would filibuster it all to death.
But the situation was one reason for the passage of the 20th Amendment.
askeptic, the articles you linked are all talking about federal regulations, not policy. Regulatory rulemaking involves complex procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act wherein things must be published in the Federal Register, given time for public comment, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, etc.
In that case, the regulations can be undone via the same procedure, or via a new statute which deletes them.
The 20th Amendment had the effect of significantly reducing the lame-duck period between a general election and the end of the President’s term, by moving the inauguration from March up to January.
[sub]
Note: askeptic’s post quoted above originally contained the text of the 20th Amendment and the comment “huh?”
[/sub]
I told you I was posting from an iphone policy/regulation whatever. The point is that the current administration is trying to enact regulatory changes that are in conflict with the expressed will of the people as expressed at the polls on Nov. 4th. These regulatory changes are hard to change and more importantly the new congress and president have much more important things to do than search the federal register to try to undue the harm being done by a lame duck admin.
There are fifty million groups in Washington who do nothing but check every detail of every regulation that comes out, forty-four million of them actively connected to the next Congress and the Democratic party.
The notion that something will be published in the Federal Register and bypassed because nobody is looking is on a par with the income tax not being legal because Ohio wasn’t properly ratified as a state.
Did you read any of the links I posted? This is a real problem and democrats are working very hard to address it. It is not being paranoid when it is happening.
Perhaps you could be bothered to google “Bush danger last minute regulatory change” and see how paranoid I am being. Or maybe you could do a little research before waving your hand from on high. Calling someone paranoid is never polite, especially when you’re wrong.
Something is happening, but it isn’t what you’re portraying. The reason people are upset with these agency decisions isn’t because they’re going to slip by the public, but because sunshine laws mean that reversing them will take a lot of time and effort by the new administration.