Hillary IS NOT eligible to be Sec. of State

reply to post by CosmicEgg


I am not disagreeing that it is indeed being used to get around Art 1 sec 6. What I am saying is that it is unconstitutional and only being allowed because it has not been challenged in a court to judge its constitutionally.

Another example of an unconstitutional act being passed as law (not challenged) was the bailout bill that originated in the Senate and not the House as is detailed in the Constitution.

Just because they have done it and gotten away with it does not make it law.......sure it sets a precedence but that does not make it legal.

reply to post by blowfishdl


Not so fast mate........Obama is not president.......nor is he president elect. He does not legally become that until the Electoral College votes on Dec 15, 2008. He can call himself Jesus Christ if he wants to (and I believe some have) but it doesn't make it so.

reply to post by jsobecky


The way I read it is that Hilary could not be SoS if:

1. The SoS post had been created during her term

2. The salary of the SoS post had been increased during her term (ie by her vote).

Presumably these were measures to stop senators creating hugely paid jobs in the executive branch to augment their pay by holding two positions.


I could be wrong though; its up to the SupCo. Would be awesome if she couldn't take the job haha... after all, maybe then there would be some real CHANGE as promised instead of the wife of a two term former president who is also a veteran partisan senator!

Whoa, whoa, whoa... So now Obama isn't prez though he's appointing his cabinet. Who, of his appointees thusfar, is worthy of the job? Anyone? No? Was Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Did Wolfowitz do anything worthwhile? Did Bolton? How about Gonzales? Does it matter at all who is where and whether it's legal or not? Wouldn't it be nice just to have some folks up there on Capitol Hill who gives a stuff about that country and works for YOUR good? You can substitute people in and out all day long, every day for the rest of your life and it won't one iota of difference until you demand QUALITY!

Does it matter which patch of land on the planet a child is born? You love the place you love. It's not determined by where your mother's water broke. A case in point: Finnair flight from Thailand to Helsinki. Swedish woman went into labor - over Kazakhstan. Where was the kid born? Do you think that child is Kazakhstani now, despite the fact that neither she nor her mother have ever set foot on that soil? Who is issuing her passport? What is her future now due to a fateful flight? Is she Swedish, Finnish, Thai or Kazakhstani? Does it matter? Will she love Sweden more than any other place on the face of the earth because she was born there? Will she love it at all?

How about we stop the pedantics and focus on real issues. Sh*t happens in life. Face it. Work with it. Rules/laws were made up by people because they suited their purpose at the time. Things have to change. Make sure the change you make is for the better, not because you're stuck in mud.

Originally posted by omega007
reply to post by blowfishdl

 

Not so fast mate........Obama is not president.......nor is he president elect. He does not legally become that until the Electoral College votes on Dec 15, 2008. He can call himself Jesus Christ if he wants to (and I believe some have) but it doesn't make it so.

Then why is he referred to by all credible news sources as President Elect? The electoral college has not voted yet on the presidential nomination?!?!?!

She'll resign her senate seat on a Monday and be appointed Secretary of State on a Tuesday. I don't see any problem with her being eligible.

Originally posted by omega007
reply to post by madhatr137

 

Again I disagree.........the section clearly states a Senator cannot be appointed to a position in government that a raise in pay was given while in office. Even if she resigns, and is not a Senator, she was when the raise was approved........she is not constitutionally eligible.

And I understand that the Constitution never stood in the way of those in Washington DC.......but none the less......it is the LAW.

Whether she steps down as Senator or had anything to do with that Civil Offices pay rate increase, aside, the Constitution reads No Senator, it is silent as to current or former, however if you'll read the Federalist papers written by the Founding Fathers, their viewpoints should clear this up. They didn't trust government and neither should you. They doubtful saw a difference between current and former Senator. A Senator's a Senator. And if that Senator, former or otherwise, had a hand, or it appeared they had an influence, in the increase advantage or profit an Civil Office, or a broad array of similiarly situated Civil Offices, one of which Civil Offices they had design or intent upon occupying -- as her attempt to run for President qualifies as such design or intent-- then, it is my belief and opinion, that Senator should hold none of the Civil Offices that they, or their influence by proxy of position, had increased for the purpose of obtaining an advantage or profit from that increase. this is clearly in keeping with the spirit and intent of Art 1 Sec 6

She would be a (former) Senator occupying a government Office which may be construed as a potential reward for her support of the (soon to be) sitting President and is subject to a pay rate increase which was effected by the Senate during her active term. It, at the very least, may be considered a conflict of interest for her and having the appearance of impropriety.

If it's not the case of a Senator recieving the Emoluments of a Civil Office which Office is under the Authority of the US Government, I don't know what is.

Of course the US Supreme Court as a matter of Constitutional Law debate argue whether the US Constitution can be upheld as the Supreme Law of the Land just because the contract says so and was ratified by individuals who, questionably, adequately represented the individuals they claimed to represent. Check that topic out sometime, theives , crooks, and swindlers undermine us every chamce they get.

It's our government, get involved. I just E- mailed this Constitutional Question to the US Atty Gen's Office. You should do the same. I'd write, call, or email anyone you could think of, not just media, lawyers, and politicians.

It's as serious as you can get when they openly mock our Constitution and tell us what it says and that it's not up to the democratic whim of the day to say what it says. Screw Cheif Justice Marshall and his Court Having only had about 16 weeks of law lectures under his belt, he was touted as the first and highest legally educated Judge of his day when He declared, "It's the province of the US Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and to say what the Law is." Funny, I thought it began "We the People" not "We the People's Elected and Unelected Officials"- but, I digress.
Nice Post.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by PhyberDragon]

[edit on 26-11-2008 by PhyberDragon]

Would this also apply to Senator Biden being appointed VP ?

Just asking.......... please be nice

Originally posted by omega007
According to Article 1 section 6 of the United States Constitution:
Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

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 encreased 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.

BTW for those who don't know what an Emolument is:
From Black's Law Legal Dictionary:

Emolument - n [ME, fr. L emolumentum, lit., miller's fee, fr emolere: to grind up] Gain, licit or illicit, from employment or position, payment received for services rendered or to be rendered. Profits arising from occupation, service, or position such as wages, advantages, fees, etc.

So, it would appear, by definition, Hilary Clinton, if she becomes, the Secretary of State will recieve Profits arising from her occupation, service, and position as Senator in the form of wages (and which position advantages her known intent to run for the Office of the President). And which Profit is a clear Gain, licit or illicit (legal or not), from her employment or position within the Senate. Further, the Gain of Profit recieved by Hilary from the Office of the SOS could also be construed as a payment for services rendered as she would recieve the Gain of Profit from the pay raise as a direct result of her being nominated to the Office of SOS for the nomination and support of President Elect (eligibility still in debate) and soon to (possibly) be the sitting President during the period of her Gain from such Profit, Barrack Hussein Obama.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by PhyberDragon]

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Would this also apply to Senator Biden being appointed VP ?

Just asking.......... please be nice

Since the Vice Presidency is a Civil Office, then, yes. It would apply to him to.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Would this also apply to Senator Biden being appointed VP ?

Just asking.......... please be nice

Since the Vice Presidency is a Civil Office, then, yes. It would apply to him to.

If the Vice Presidency is a Civil Office then would the Presidency be a Civil Office. If so then Obama really is eneligable to become the President.

HOLY CRAP our country is being ran by a bunch of illegals!!!!!!!!!

Well, no matter what party has control of the Presidency, they will do what they very well please, regardless of what the Constitution and/or "the people" say. That just goes to show everyone that when it comes to dirty politics, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.. They are both controled by the Bildergurgs and Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations anyway.

Originally posted by omega007
reply to post by CosmicEgg

 

I am not disagreeing that it is indeed being used to get around Art 1 sec 6. What I am saying is that it is unconstitutional and only being allowed because it has not been challenged in a court to judge its constitutionally.

Another example of an unconstitutional act being passed as law (not challenged) was the bailout bill that originated in the Senate and not the House as is detailed in the Constitution.

Just because they have done it and gotten away with it does not make it law.......sure it sets a precedence but that does not make it legal.

? sorry, the bailout was a bill that was originally started in the house, passed and then changed by the senate, then sent back to the house because it was changed by the senate. Procedures were followed, even though I think they pushed the meaning of the law to its limits in this particular case. So no the situations are not the same. I did some postings on this but am not sure where they are, if I find them I will edit this posting with a link. The original bill was passed in the house MONTHS before the senate took it and changed it around creating the bail out bill.

reply to post by PhyberDragon


Only if there was a pay raise for VP....

What do you mean her credit is over extended at Sax!!!!? She can shop anywhere in the world. I think it's an excelent choice. It's high time someone has been able to go on expensive spending sprees and charge it all to the taxpayers. "You go girl!!"

reply to post by amazed


Ah.......almost correct. The bill was passed and sent to the Senate and it was called the Paul Welstone Anti-discrimination bill. It was not a revenue bill. The Senate added the bailout to this bill, passed it and sent it back to the House. The Constitution states "all bills of revenue must originate in the House"........it did not. Thus it is Unconstitutional and illegal passed by a band of stealing, cheating, lying, traitors and should all be hung.

reply to post by jd140


Nope the difference is one is appointed and one is voted (elected).....read the Constitution......all good Americans (like me) know it by heart.