(05-05-2020 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 08:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Plenty of reason to talk to world leaders during this time, but it needs to remain high level and out of the weeds of policy. If we want to change that, then lets change when inauguration occurs.

Why? And for that matter, how? Name the subjects that are okay to talk about in your mind?

Ive already provided some examples of topics incoming admins can, and frankly should, discuss. You’re intentionally ignoring that.

And I’ve already explained why, but let’s take it to an extreme. Say during the lame duck period we’re attacked by a foreign power and the POTUS needs to respond. We would not want to have two executives managing the response concurrently. We would want a unified message and response being executed through a single version of the executive branch. What you would want would be the outgoing admin to bring in the incoming admin, not the incoming admin going rogue and potentially detailing the response.

And pass a new amendment. We’ve done it once to shorten the lame duck period, so if y’all are so worked up over the current lame duck period and its impacts, advocate for changing it so it is shortened again.

But as the abortion lobby (among others) has been insisting for decades, an amendment is just too much trouble, since not everyone will agree to it like they should.

Fortunately, we don't need an amendment -- the Constitution can just "adapt" with the "times". As a potential VP nominee explained not long ago, not everything needs to be in "that book you carry".

Passing a new amendment is troublesome and difficult. But yes, if the current Supreme Court finds that the Logan Act is unconstitutional, that could also alter its interpretation.

When it comes to changing the Constitution, you and I were not talking about the Logan Act; we were talking about the lame duck period. Why shouldn't the Court just "adapt" the period with the times?

(05-05-2020 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But amending the Constitution is how it would be changed permanently - I figured that was the best answer when asked how it would be changed.

Good to know. The framers thought so too.