Posted on 12/11/2008 11:20:11 AM PST by tatsinfla
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would make about $4,700 less as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.
Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation's top diplomat to keep Clinton's nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.
An obscure section on compensation for public officials, the Emoluments Clause, says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term.
(Excerpt) Read more at rr.com ...
“running afoul of the Constitution”
I thought we weren’t using the constitution anymore?
$95 per week less than Condi before taxes.
How will she survive?
That’s what lib/dems do best.
This is how its been done in the past.
“An obscure section...”
Seems they have the same description for the first two amendments also.
Typical......
They’re obviously not counting the graft and side deals.
As numerous freepers have already suggested, there are precedents for handling it this way.
What struck me was the characterization, “An obscure section on compensation for public officials.” Somehow or other, any part of the Constitutin that is inconvenient for a Democrat becomes obscure, or fuzzy, or starts growing penumbras.
Nothing especially obscure or unusual about a provision that prohibits obvious conflicts of interest-i.e., politicians voting themselves pay raises.
Sen Clinton would take the position for $1 a year if anybody bothered to ask.
Last person to do this was a Republican — Nixon.
“That’s what lib/dems do best.”
Just following the example set by Nixon when he had Congress lower the salary for one of his appointees.
To the low people that occupy the upper echelons of our government the US Constitution is just another meaningless paper to keep the little people fooled into thinking they have some legal rights and that laws apply to everyone.
It helps keep the masses in line.
But they really see it as just another document to be twisted, manipulated, parsed and reinterpreted - like a warranty, used car sales contract or laws against racial preferences.
If it is comprised of words on paper, lawyers and politicians can pervert its intent and make it mean whatever they want.
I don't see any traction coming from it, but the simple fact is that the job's pay WAS increased. That's beyond dispute. The fact that they changed the pay back afterwards is just ancillary data.
As I understand it, the emoluments clause is to prevent sweetheart deals. Well, what we have right here is a special change in the pay structure SPECIFICALLY for the benefit of one very special person.
As I say, I'm sure this will go through very smoothly -- but it totally goes against the spirit of the law.
That takes care of that. Now...how do they fix Obama’s Constitutional problem?
The constitution is not lengthy or wordy tome, there are no “obscure sections.”
Congress was right in removing the raise.
She ain’t doing it for the salary, that’s fer sher.
And Hillary will get her own private jet to tool around in... eat your heart out Pelosi!
i thought nan had one, they just wouldn’t give her one as big as she wanted....
“$95 per week less than Condi before taxes.
How will she survive?”
Let’s all “pass the hat” for poor Hildebeast.(sarcasm added)
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.