Posted on 11/25/2008 3:13:00 PM PST by Steve Schulin
I disagree. Biden was elected, not appointed.
As for Hillary... If she resigned before being appointed, then she is not a senator anymore, and the prohibition would not apply. But I think she would have to resign before the formal nomination was made.
If she is prohibited because of this clause in the constitution, then taking a pay cut wouldn't make it OK. The emoluments will still have been increased. It would not be in her power to lower the salary to get around this prohibition.
Seems like “the term for which he was elected” is pretty easy to understand. You can’t just opt out by resigning.
But in the end, does it really matter? Has the US Constitution really driven much of anything of late?
I would say that Clinton would have had to resign before the pay for SoS was increased. Resigning before being appointed does nothing to address the fact that she was in the Senate when the pay was raised, making her ineligible for the position until her term length passes.
-PJ
The SoS position wasn't "created" between 2001 and the present time. Therefore, the Beast can serve as SoS.
Besides, Nixon appointed Ford as Veep while Ford was still a House member.
The issue has come up before though. Orrin Hatch had been considered for the SCOTUS some years ago. The Congress would have had to pass special legislation to reduce the salary of that one seat.
... or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time ...
It is the pay increase (regardless of who authorized it) that disqualifies any sitting Senator or Representative from Cabinet (or other civil office) appointments.
The Nixon/Ford example wouldn't apply unless the pay (or other benefits) of the Office of the Vice President were increased. I don't know if they were ... but I'm betting they were not.
In the end, it does matter. Win or lose, not asking the question, or not engaging in the debate makes the outcome assured: you'll lose every time!
That would mean that Senators have the worst it, with 6-year terms to outlast. I guess the lesson is, if you aspire to be appointed to a Cabinet position, don't be in the Senate first.
An opposition outgoing President could take advantage of this in the future by raising the pay of Cabinet positions by $1, thereby disqualifying opposing party Senators for consideration by an incoming President for up to 6 years. A really mean President can wreak havoc, since Congressional terms begin on Jan 3, and Presidential terms begin on Jan 20. Theoretically, an outgoing President could use Executive Order to raise the pay of Cabinet members by $1 on Jan 4, making any Congressmen chosen by the incoming President-Elect suddenly disqualified for the position, since they aren't officially nominated or confirmed until after the new President takes office.
-PJ
No but it would be within the power of the same Senate which will have to approve her appointment to the cabinet.
I can't imagine why they would be willing to confirm her but not to revert the emoluments of the position.
I am waiting for the MSM to demand a coronation and drop the title of president for Obambi.
“I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that Constitution, the U.S. Constitution. I never told anybody to adhere to it, not a single time; never. ...”
First, you have to actually care about the constitution.
Second...........
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.