Lame Duck Presidents Should Be Made More Lame

A follow-up to last night’s post: Mark Levin, prompted by how Obama and his stooges have conducted themselves since the election, last night proposed a Constitutional Amendment sharply limiting the power of an outgoing President between an election and the Inauguration of the next POTUS.

I concur although I’m not sure of the best form of such an amendment.  Levin’s proposal of a shorter lame duck period has problems.  For one thing, what if there is a lengthy election dispute as in 2000?  But the UK seems to do just fine with an immediate transition. 

I do think a provision that no new executive orders or regulations can be issued without 2/3s approval of both houses of Congress would be good.  I also reluctantly see the need to limit pardon power in the lame duck period.  Ideally, an ethical POTUS would make just but unpopular pardons as he departs.  But a corrupt and unaccountable POTUS can do too much damage . . . which is what I expect from Obama this coming week.

We can thank Bill Clinton especially for the need for a Constitutional Amendment.  The manner in which he and Hillary left the White House in 2001, particularly his pardons, was beyond despicable.  Yet, thanks to the Democrat “News” Media and predominantly Democrat faux historians as well as Establishment Republican cowards helping the rest of us to forget (Well, curmudgeons like me never forget.), the two suffered no lasting political consequence.  She was elected Senator and came too close to being elected President.

Thus, the Clintons showed that a DemocRAT POTUS can do pretty much whatever he wants as he leaves with little if any lasting harm to his reputation and standing.  (We would never be allowed to forget if a Republican POTUS so departed scandalously, of course.)

Which is one reason never to elect a DemocRAT as President ever again.  But we are not that rational of a country.  So a Constitutional Amendment is needful to protect us from outgoing DemocRATS and from ourselves.