Brian Connolly is a writer and researcher for IntellectualCapital.com.

Americans always have taken great pride in the smooth transition of government control that follows each election, no matter how harsh the partisan rhetoric of the campaign season or how bitter the animosity between the victors and the defeated. Provisions in the Constitution, as well as an abiding tradition of fair play and good sportsmanship, have prevented bloodshed or violent uprising during the transfer of power from one president to the next or during a change in partisan control of the chambers of Congress. Nevertheless, such transitions are not always smooth. Historically, the potential for turbulence has been greatest during the so-called "lame duck" sessions, which can occur in even-numbered years when legislators return to Capitol Hill during the period between the elections and Inauguration Day. Such sessions were a regular occurrence until 1934, when the Twentieth Amendment set January 3 as the starting date for new Congressional terms; since World War II there have been only four occasions when both houses returned to the Hill for post-election sessions.

Madison v. Marbury and the misdeeds of McCarthy

Perhaps the most infamous lame duck session of Congress took place in early 1801, following John Adams' loss to Thomas Jefferson and the Federalists' loss of control of both chambers. In an effort to shore up its waning political power, the lame duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of February 3, 1801 creating new circuit courts and 58 new federal judgeships. Two weeks later, the lame duck Congress created 42 justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. Meeting on the eve of Jefferson's inauguration on March 4, the Senate confirmed President Adams' nominees for all those new slots, setting off a power struggle and constitutional debate that culminated in the Supreme Court's Marbury v. Madison ruling, which initiated the practice of judicial review.

Another noteworthy lame duck session took place in 1954, when the Senate reconvened for a special session that lasted from November 8 to December 2, 1954 -- just long enough to condemn famed anti-Communist red-baiter Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (R-WI) by adopting a resolution censuring him for "conduct. . . unbecoming a Member of the United States Senate."

Lame ducks of the 1970s

The off-year elections of 1970, halfway through Richard Nixon's first term as President, set the stage for a rancorous lame duck session of Congress as legislators returned to Capitol Hill to handle unfinished business. While Democrats retained control of both the Senate and the House, many of them -- particularly the 20 lame duck Representatives and 7 lame duck Senators -- resented the harsh partisan rhetoric employed by Vice President Agnew, who conducted a "depressing and mean" campaign," according to Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT). As a consequence, Nixon had a hard time finding support for the legislation he hoped to get approved by the end of the 91st Congress. Before adjourning, Congress defeated the Family Assistance Plan, which was Nixon's proposal for welfare reform, and the supersonic transport plane (SST) program, which Democratic Senators William Proxmire and Edmund Muskie stopped with a filibuster.

In late 1974, following Nixon's resignation and the victories of Democratic "Watergate babies" in the Congressional elections, 103 lame ducks -- 92 Representatives and 11 Senators -- were among the Members returning for a post-election session. After hearings in both the Senate Rules Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, Congress confirmed the nomination of Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President. President Gerald Ford did not fare as well on other matters, though, in large part because the Democratic majority -- well aware that its margin of control would increase by 43 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate in the new term -- was reluctant to pass judgment on all but the most pressing legislation, preferring to defer debate over some of the President's more controversial legislative proposals until 1975.

Partisan parting shots

President Carter wasn't the only lame duck in Washington following the 1980 elections -- Republicans had won control of the Senate and narrowed the Democratic margin in the House. As legislators returned to Capitol Hill for the lame duck session, there was speculation that action might be completed on a $39 billion tax cut package favored both by Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd and the G.O.P.'s Bob Dole, but Carter pledged to veto such a bill. Despite Republican efforts to postpone the passage of a 1981 budget until the new term, differences between House and Senate bills were worked out and a budget eventually was passed that contained a 2% across-the-board spending cut. Democrats hoped this move would test Reagan's campaign pledge to cut the budget. In another preemptive move by Democrats, a scaled-down version of President Carter's 1979 "superfund" proposal for toxic waste clean-up was approved by the House on December 3 after barely passing in the Senate (confirming Democrats' concerns that the bill would have been doomed in the new G.O.P.-held Senate). After the session finally ended on December 16, following a marathon debate over a continuing appropriations bill, Byrd remarked, "The lame duck proved to be a rather healthy duck, after all."

The chance for a majority on its way out of power to get in one last parting shot at the opposition, either by steamrolling through some last minute piece of legislation or by hampering the other party's efforts, is the most worrisome characteristic of lame duck sessions. It is why the ability of a lame-duck president to make judicial appointments was curtailed in the 19th Century. It's difficult to tell the Congress when to meet or how to handle its affairs, but curtailing special post-election sessions might result in a truer representation of what voters want.