jackson.gif)
Posted on 09/14/2009 11:12:30 PM PDT by 51773photo
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a law suit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)) will be heard by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 9:30 AM ET
Location: Courtroom 22A
The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...
This one should be fun to follow.
10 to 1, MSM will only mention it, if it goes for her.
We shall see. Wasn't it Hillary that birthed the 'birthers' questioning BamaKennedy's eligibility?
The Constitution is pretty specific about this:
Article I, Section VI, Clause II:
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 increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
I think the key phrase is “during the Time for which he was elected” ...
If it goes to SCOTUS - I think Hillary is toast.
The Founding Fathers’ intent is crystal clear here ...
They DID NOT want someone to vote for the creation of an office or the increase of salary for an office AND THEN resign to take such office.
I’ve never paid much attention to Article I, section 6 before, but it seems pretty clear. The Emoluments were indeed increased. I assume it will be seen as archane, or said that pay increases don’t count. And maybe they’d be right, i don’t know. One thing’s for certain, if Clinton is actually inelligible, they won’t eject her. It would be just another one of those forgotten clauses.
I’ve never paid much attention to Article I, section 6 before, but it seems pretty clear. The Emoluments were indeed increased. I assume it will be seen as archane, or said that pay increases don’t count. And maybe they’d be right, i don’t know. One thing’s for certain, if Clinton is actually inelligible, they won’t eject her. It would be just another one of those forgotten clauses.
***
Arcane or not - the law is the law and you gotta follow it ...
If you disagree with it - CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION !!!
Otherwise, you might as well remove it from the National Archives and put it in the Capitol broom closet as backup in case you run out of T.P.
If it were possible to bet on this suit, I’d front a million dollars. Only problem is, the only odds I could get would allow me to win about a dollar.
I had not heard that. If she does go down, what are the odds of her turning on Obama for 2012? It kinda makes one wonder what she could use against him now that she is ‘one of them’.
“the law is the law and you gotta follow it”
I agree, but like the article said, the Constitution is up against Political Expediancy. A mighty foe.
This issue is well-settled law. Courts have repeatedly held that Hillary (or any person so-situated) is NOT legally prohibited from SERVING as Sec State, or being paid to do so. She is Constitutionally prohibited from taking any pay or benefit INCREASE that was passed during her term in Senate.
This comes up regarding the appointment of virtually anyone who was in Senate or HOR. Opponents blather about this every time, and it looses every time as to the actual holding of the office long before it is filed.... unless the Plaintiff wants only press coverage.
JW knows better than to file this POS.
The constitution is the last thing to stand in Obama’s way. Acorn will take the money Obama gave them, and sue the U.S. in court, proclaiming the Constitution to be racist.
One thing’s for certain, if Clinton is actually inelligible, they won’t eject her. It would be just another one of those forgotten clauses.
***
Not so sure about that ...
If it gets to SCOTUS, they have to do something - otherwise they lose ALL legitimacy as the final arbiter of law.
They might as well just pack their bags and leave town because Congress and POTUS would just ride rough shod over them.
They have no REAL power in the sense of military or police authority - just their good name and the sense of integrity that people feel for them. And that is what legitimizes them - here and around the world.
Otherwise, you might as well just tear up the Marbury v. Madison decision ...
The question originated out of the belly of her presidential campaign. Then one of her supporters a 'truther' Mr. Berg file court papers. For all practical purposes Hillary birthed the 'truther' movement when she took to the Senate floor a few short weeks after 9/11 asking the question with her New York City newspaper in hand, "What did Bush know and When did he know it". And the 'truther' movement was born.
I think it is pretty much a 'draw' as to which one of them has the 'goods' on the other.
Please cite the precedents you rely on to say that this is settled law.
I believe there are none, because while the “roll-back” or foreswearing of increased emoluments during the affected time in office has been used in the past as a way to thread the needle of this Constitutional requirement, and such has been accpeted by the Congress, I do not know of a single case addressing this Constitutional issue by the Courts.
Please prove me wrong by citing the precedent or precedents.
I’ll now go further and state for a fact that neither the “Saxby fix” or the “temporary Saxby fix” have ever been tested in the courts.
Prove me wrong. You cannot.
Ping.
Now why can’t we get a Foreign Service Official to challenge Obama’s Constitutional eligibility on these grounds? A special three-judge panel of U.S. District Court judges for the District of Columbia is being convened to hear this case.
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.