Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Sec. of State appointment violates Constitution
America's Independent Party ^ | November 25, 2008 | Daniel McClain

Posted on 11/25/2008 3:13:00 PM PST by Steve Schulin

Article 1 Section 6 Part 2 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.

Since the Senate raised the compensation of Sec of State in January this prevents Hillary Clinton from constitutionally accepting the post.

Personally, however, I feel that this is being thrown out in the media to divert from the real issue of Obama's lack of natural born citizenship. Futhermore, does anyone else feel that this whole Office of the President elect stuff is going way overboard. He gives these presidential news conferences like he is already in power.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 110th; bho2008; clinton; constitution; hillary; obama; obamatransitionfile; oops; sos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: ConservativeMind

It seems like you are contorting plain English there. ‘During the time for which he was elected’ would commonly be interpreted as the six year term for which she was elected, whether or not she steps down early.


21 posted on 11/25/2008 3:28:32 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

details...details...when you’re The One who needs ‘em?


22 posted on 11/25/2008 3:29:23 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
....ahhhh...I see where you're coming from....the phrase
"or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time...."
is key, isn't it? Hmm.

Okay, you may be on to something. Can you cite the law or an article where the SOS compensation was increased?

Constitutional scholars?!?

23 posted on 11/25/2008 3:32:26 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn; ConservativeMind

Hillary Clinton was elected in 2006 to a six year term. Therefore, “during the time for which he was elected” is from 2006-2012. The actual time served is irrelevant. In fact, the next phrase “and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office” already bars one from retaining their legislative position, so what would be point of saying the same thing twice?

Hillary can still take the position provided they reduce her pay back to the previous level.

(Unless, of course, Obama was counting on this, and just drops her altogether while feigning surprise.)


24 posted on 11/25/2008 3:32:32 PM PST by explodingspleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
Futhermore, does anyone else feel that this whole Office of the President elect stuff is going way overboard. He gives these presidential news conferences like he is already in power.

If there is anything to the birth certificate problem (and it definitely appears that there is) Obama is using his self-invented Office of the President-Elect to entrench himself more firmly in the White House. I believe it is all a ploy to make it more difficult for people even to consider the fact that he might not be eligible for office. President Bush would do us all a favor by re-establishing his rightful place as our leader; unfortunately, the press already took care of undermining him to the point that he is more than happy to just leave quietly.

25 posted on 11/25/2008 3:33:28 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Not quite.

The first clause:

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:

means:

If an office is created, or the salary, benefits or or other compensation of an existing office is increased during the term of an elected Senator or Representative, that sitting Senator or Representative is not eligible for appointment to that office.

The language is specific that period of interest is the "time for which he was elected" and not the "time for which he serves." Technically this prevents Senators and Representative from creating an office for themselves or lining their own pockets prior to appointments UNLESS they wait until their term of Elected Office is over.

Hilary was a sitting Senator when the Senate increased the emoluments (salary) of the office of the Secretary of State. Her term has not yet ended. According to this Constitutional restriction, she would not be eligible for appointment to that office (or any other office similarly affected) until after her Senatorial term expires.

Pesky thing, that Constitution!

26 posted on 11/25/2008 3:35:48 PM PST by Dimples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
I’m not sure what your issue is here.

The issue is that she was serving as a senator when the compensation (emoluments) for the Secretary of State position was increased. The fact that she'd resign her Senate post is irrelevant to that prior service.

27 posted on 11/25/2008 3:37:10 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

“.....which he was elected,.....”

Because it says “he” and not “she” the rule does not apply. LOL


28 posted on 11/25/2008 3:40:11 PM PST by diverteach (http://www.slapobama.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mortal19440

More like a professor of the Harvard-U Bull Session.


29 posted on 11/25/2008 3:40:44 PM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

That’s where the term “grease palms” comes from;)


30 posted on 11/25/2008 3:42:53 PM PST by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: explodingspleen

No offence, but this is grasping at straws and for what? Do you really want to keep Hillary in the Senate for the next 10-40 years? I don’t. Let her take the job and then at the next election the GOP has a shot at taking the seat.


31 posted on 11/25/2008 3:43:17 PM PST by PeterFinn (Joe Biden for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
It looks like a literal reading of the clause says "shall have been increased during such time," which does not imply that the Senate had to directly vote on it.

But, what's another Constitutional clause to be discarded in the pursuit of power? I still wonder why the people of New London, CT, freely gave up their homes because the Supreme Court ordered them to, when clearly nobody else has to follow the Constitution anymore.

-PJ

32 posted on 11/25/2008 3:43:55 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin
If this is in fact a real issue for Hillary, I believe the same would apply to Biden as VP since the VP salary was also increased at the same time Cabinet salaries were increased.
33 posted on 11/25/2008 3:55:25 PM PST by USMA '71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USMA '71

It would seem so.


34 posted on 11/25/2008 4:00:23 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Obama is bringing in every crook and bumbler he can to assure consistency in his message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

Executive Order Jan. 2008 regarding pay schedules:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html

Not sure who all is covered under this order.


35 posted on 11/25/2008 4:08:54 PM PST by deport ( ----Cue Spooky Music---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

...Con-sty-two-shun?

What is that?


36 posted on 11/25/2008 4:11:30 PM PST by Tzimisce (http://groups.myspace.com/nailthemessiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheNewPundit
So does this mean that no Congress-person can take a cabinet position if the pay was increased while they served?

Yes, that's what it means. It couldn't be more clear.

Of course, "emoluments" is a hard word, so it wouldn't be fair to hold her to that.

37 posted on 11/25/2008 4:14:16 PM PST by Jim Noble (I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: explodingspleen

Yep. They can’t vote to create an office, or boost the pay of an office, then resign and take that office. That is just one bit of an effort to keep them from making a silver-lined nest for them to jump in.


38 posted on 11/25/2008 4:28:38 PM PST by Dagny&Hank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Steve Schulin

They’ve p*ssed on the Constitution for 16 years now. Why should “the Ze-ro” think that he must be different.


39 posted on 11/25/2008 4:33:31 PM PST by Sarajevo (I hear moon crickets...........chirping.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

What? Why am I “grasping at straws”? Why is it up to me to “let her take the job”?

I’m just explaining what the text says. She has to take a paycut in order to be appointed. Them’s the rules. It’s pretty clearcut.

Unless you just think the constitution is just too much bother to follow anymore.


40 posted on 11/25/2008 4:35:55 PM PST by explodingspleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson