Posted on 11/25/2008 8:27:27 PM PST by Jay777
From Marc Ambinder:
Pete Williams of NBC raised the question on MSNBC this afternoon: Is Hillary Clinton barred by the Constitution from accepting the post of secretary of state?Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:
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 have no idea if this means she can't take the office because salary for cabinet positions was increased last year while Clinton was a Senator. I doubt anyone will seriously challenge this position on these grounds, but it may make Obama and Clinton think twice. Any constitutional scholars or lawyers out there want to weigh in on this one?
One commenter at Say Anything says this has happened before:
This is not the first time this Article has stood in the way of a cabinet appointment. In 1973, at the height of Watergate, President Richard Nixon nominated William Saxbe (R) to be Attorney General and the issue was raised because Saxbe was in the Senate in 1969 when the Attorney General’s pay was raised.In that instance, Congress lowered the pay for the AG, allowing the appointment to proceed. Democratic Senators complained, however, and 10 senators actually voted against the transparent scheme on constitutional grounds. At the time, Sen. Robert C. Byrd deemed it was clearly unconstitutional saying we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
The purpose of this was not to prevent someone from holding such an office. The purpose was to prevent him/her from unfairly profiting from a benefit they voted for.
The purpose of this was not to prevent someone from holding such an office. The purpose was to prevent him/her from unfairly profiting from a benefit they voted for.
Remove the (increased) benefit the the issue is moot.
Amazing, I agree with Senator Byrd on this one. The salary was raised during her time in the Senate, that is the test. It being lowered latter is nice I guess, but has nothing to do with the Constitutional requirement. It's not about being reasonable, when the Constitution is explicit, as it usually is.
Can a former two term co-President be appointed to a job in which he/she is #4 in the line of succession to the Presidency?
I think she’d be beyond the confirmation before she sold her seat yet that would be to funny !
Sort of a Charlie Brown pulls the ball from Lucy’s extra point attempt thang !!
You miss the point, she was in a position to vote herself what would now be a raise. Hence the Constitutional obstacle.
I suggest we don’t just let these things slide, the weight will pile up.
I would think this was placed in there because as a sitting senator or representative, such a person could have voted to raise the higher office’s salary (ie voting to give themselves a raise in a higher office).
I caught the point on down the thread.... agree !
Stay safe !
They would just have to skip over him.
Nope. Doesn't work. Resignation doesn't cover
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected,That time runs out in 2013.
Please, no more Clinton secs in the oval office.
“she was in a position to vote herself what would now be a raise.”
I doubt that in her wildest dreams she would have imagined that things would turn out they way they have. Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment cleaning up this little mess, like the presidential 2 term limit correction a few decades ago.
The wording declares ‘for the time he was elected’ which I would intrepret to mean for the entire elected term whether or not he/she resigns. He/she is still not eligible for the original elected term.
I believe that this is to prevent any state senator/erpersentative allegience being transferred from their state to the federal union.
I believe it is to protect ‘states rights’.
Hey.
If the all knowing Messiah, he of the land of Zer0, is
probably a citizen flawed imposter,
who’s to question the qualifications of her of the cankled big thigh??
Until BO is forced to produce his BC, the CONSTITUTION MEANS NOTHING!!!
This issue with Billary is MOOT
If he values his neck, he will - otherwise, she's directly behind him in succession to the Presidency.
A Constitutional crisis is lurking in the darkness in the coming 4 years. And it is not whether the manger the great one was born in was located in Kenya or Cleveland. No, this one is bigger. . . Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution states “No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office shall, without Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State”
The world is waiting for their King and savior and leave it to a bunch of long hairs 200 years ago to mess it all up!
All Hail the Messiah Barack Obama!
www.TheChurchofBarackObama.com
http://thechurchofbarackobama.blogspot.com/
The Church of Barack Obama is not affiliated with the Church of Elvis.
Ford was a Senator when he was appointed Vice President.
We shall have an undocumented worker leading the Fed soon.
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.