> Peter Montgomery wrote: > > I find it puzzling that a procedure which involves so many distinct > activities, > including a speech of some length, would be held at a time of year > when the elements militate against the focus of said procedure. > > If the reason lies with its being necessary as soon after the election > as possible, then the next obvious question arises. Until 1956 inanugurations were held in March -- that date having been set in the Constitution when it was apt to take several months first to collect the electoral votes, then for the new president to move to Washington. And of course the amendment that changed it to January 20 was pre-TV, so it still wasn't a big deal. (You might look up where the ceremony was held at that time. I suspect indoors but I don't know.) The change from March to January was triggered by the fact that in 1933, as the nation plunged deeper into a banking crisis, the delay between November and March became really serious. Carrol P.S. When have political ceremonies been all that rational or explicable anyhow?