Posted on 12/01/2008 8:25:23 AM PST by OL Hickory
Will a clause in the Constitution prevent Sen. Hillary Clinton from being secretary of state?
Jeffrey Toobin reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
>Trouble ahead for clinton?<
Why should there be? Just circumvent the Costitution as we are about to do with the president-elect.
Anyone think that Comrade 0bama and his politburo of ‘Rats care about the Constitution at all?
How about the lamestream media, think they care?
Check it out folks, if the 0bama birth certificate issue is getting no traction, you think anybody is going to worry about Hiliarly’s ‘eligibility’ to ‘serve’?
It’s over people, the ‘Dear Comrade’ will be ruling on this issue come Day One.
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1227548910.shtml
Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause (Volokh Conspiracy)
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time ....”
-— Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2)
Why should the Dems be concerned about some old essay written by dead white male slaveowners? (please tell me you don’t need a sarc symbol)
Welcome to America2.0
Gee these guys were having a good time. Judicial Watch? hehehehe.
If Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution forbids Clinton from being named to the Cabinet then why didn’t it also forbid Jerry Ford from being made vice-president?
I don’t think that a cost-of-living adjustment constitutes an “increase in emoluments” under the Constitution. In any case Mrs. Clinton will undoubtedly refuse the extra pay.
Of course the man nominating her is not constitutionally qualified for his job. So the nomination has a fatal legal defect, as will all nominations by that Kenyan-born person.
I think the delegate to the Constitutional Convention who did the actual wording of the text, after they thrashed out what the Constitution should say, was Gouverneur Morris, who wasn’t a slaveholder as far as I know (from NY)...but the convention was entirely comprised of white males...no women, African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus...only one or two Catholics. Very un-diverse. How can it be used to hold back women or persons of color in the 21st century?
RE: my post #4 above
There’s a lot of legal blogger interest in the Emoluments Clause as it pertains to HRC.
Most bloggers and many legal scholars agree that she is ineligible.
If you follow from the Volokh Conspiracy blog (link provided above), he (Prof. Volokh) provides lots of commentary and links and references to other legal scholars. Again the consensus that I’ve read seems to be “she’s ineligible, but there is this loophole, which may or may not be illegal.”
Well, the Clintons never saw a loophole they wouldn’t use, so I expect this will drag out for a while.
Non-issue...
I think Obamas first order of business is to convene members and write an more up-to- date constitution . You know one that suits the needs of modern man
Using this logic, we should just bend over for the next four years.
Stop clutching at straws. The Clinton Administration Redux is here.
The more interesting constitutional question ... or set of questions ...concern(s) Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama's qualifications under the Constitution to serve as President.
1 Where was he born?
2 Was his Mom legally married to BHO, Sr. ? (Probably better for BHO, Jr. if she were not.) That Hawaiian Birth Certificate might clear those two questions up, as at the time, one needn't to have been born in Hawaii to get one..
3 Once that little stickler is cleared up, was he legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro back in olde Indonesia?
4 Did he ever hold an Indonesian Passport?
5 And what the heck happens if (a) The SCOTUS decides to hear the case, and of course, the thriller, (b) what happens if the SCOTUS finds him constitutionally unqualified? Or what happens if there's a long-drawn-out court case?
They can’t be stupid enough to not have fully addressed all this stuff.
>>>>Anybody that doesn’t think that Zero’s people and Clinton’s people didn’t give this issue the ultimate legal scrutiny is pretty much an idiot. Non-issue... <<<<<<
yes, I agree.
it’s a tried-and-true accepted violation.
Volokh noted that the clause was probably intended to prevent congressmen from approving a pay raise to a post, and then being seated to it themselves (or seeing that it went to friends)
makes sense
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.