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 ...
His place of birth is a BIG Constitutional problem!
Not an issue.
The first clause says that you can't create a civil job for a sitting legislator. Nor can you lure a legislator away by a promise of huge pay for an existing job. Secretary of State is neither new, nor are they offering "increased emoluments.
The second clause says nothing more than that Hillary can't remain in the Senate if she takes the SoS job.
Does this mean no currenly members of Congress can be appointed any civil office?
Apparently.
Yes, the same way a citizen who is not born in the U.S. may serve in cabinet, as Speaker, President pro tem, etc. They are passed over to the next qualified person in the line, should it necessitate. This is why Kissinger and Albright were able to serve as SOS.
She won't be appointed due to this but Obama sure looks good huh?
[[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 ]]
Clearly SHE is barred from accepting hte position- Note very carefully that the constitution states “during the Time for whi HE was elected”- It makes NO mention of a SHE- only a HE- so therefore, Women obviously are barred from office
Not quite.
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 ... or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;
If I'm reading Sen. Byrd correctly, he objects because the pay for the office of SoS increased WHEN CLINTON WAS SITTING AS SENATOR, voting the increase. When was the last time an increase was approved by the Senate? Did she, in fact, vote on the measure? Byrd is also pointing out that back in '73 the very situation occurred, simply lowering the pay was an obvious end-run around the Constitution.
NO EX-POST FACTO, it doesn't matter that the guy gets less money, the Constitution is very specific as regards here.
No, only those civil offices which were created during their tenure in Congress.
My "second clause" would probably correspond to your third: she couldn't stay in the Senate if she accepted the SoS job.
That's a given -- my point is what I believe Byrd is making, that during her tenure, she voted an increase to the SoS salary and therefore is no longer Constitutionally eligible to that post, or any other for which she has voted a salary increase.
Ya know what on second thought it is the clintons and Obama they will do whatever they want.
Neither she nor any other senator or congressman voted on the increase. It was done by executive order from President Bush, which I guess he can do because it's the executive branch.
Well, I suppose someone would attempt to push the technicality that the increase came about under her tenure, but if this is the case, EO, then I don't believe she should be disqualified, as she herself did not vote on an increase for a job for which she is now being considered.
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.