|
|
Topic started on 1-12-2008 @ 02:42 AM by Wolf321
|
Hillary to head State: Is it constitutional?
www.worldnetdaily.com
 Barack Obama, it has been reported, intends to announce Sen. Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state, an appointment America's
Founding Fathers forbade in the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of
state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term.
The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "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."
During Hillary Clinton's current term in the Senate, the salary for Cabinet officers was increased from $186,600 to $191,300. Since the salary is
scheduled to again be raised in January 2009, not only Hillary Clinton, but all sitting Senate members could be considered constitutionally ineligible
to serve in Obama's Cabinet. (visit the link for the full news article)
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Breaking Political News topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 02:42 AM by Wolf321
|
Well, it seems in conjunction with the ongoing debate on President-elect Barack Hussein Obama's citizenship, the constitutionality of an appointment
of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Secretary of State has come up. This will clearly inflame liberals.
Why are there so many potential constitutional conflicts with this coming administration? Have such things happened before in American history?
www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit: Rodham. I wonder what the reaction would have been had I initially used all three names for both. Would people have questioned why I used three
names at all?
[edit on 1-12-2008 by Wolf321]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 02:54 AM by SonicInfinity
|
Hmm, why do you say "Barack Hussein Obama" and not "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? I hope you're not emphasizing his middle name or anything like that.
It makes you wonder if they're all being unconstitutional on purpose. You can never tell what these people are thinking. Even if Hillary being
Secretary of State is unconstitutional, if Obama can get past the system, I don't see how Hillary will be stopped.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 02:59 AM by Styki
|
Liberals will be fine. It's only natural for jobs to get pay increases as inflation increases. And the only place people are talking seriously
about the rumors of Obamas birthplace is here at ats.
When you stop to think about it do these things really matter? Do you think Hillary was planning on becoming secretary of state? With a majority of
the popular vote dose it even matter if Obama spent a few years of his life which he most likely doesn't even remember out of the US? What we have
here are a few people grasping at a few minor pieces of straw while ignoring the bigger picture.
Are conservatives going to fight this every step of the way?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 03:01 AM by Ian McLean
|
They will apply the 'Saxby Fix':
en.wikipedia.org...
The Saxbe fix or simply a "rollback" is a solution to a restriction by the Ineligibility Clause contained in Article One of the United States
Constitution on sitting members of the United States Congress being appointed to jobs created for them or for which the salary was increased while
they were in office.
The most recent example, I believe, of this being applied was so that Lloyd Bentsen could become Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration,
moving from the Senate.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:03 AM by zephyrs
|
Originally posted by Wolf321
Well, it seems in conjunction with the ongoing debate on President-elect Barack Hussein Obama citizenship, the constitutionality of an appointment of
Sen. Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State has come up. This will clearly inflame liberals.
Why are there so many potential constitutional conflicts with this coming administration? Have such things happened before in American history?
www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Thanks for the post. That's very interesting. I'm going to have to look into it a bit more. But a quick, maybe off topic, question. Why do you use
Barack Hussein Obama but only Hillary Clinton and leave out Rodham?
Are you one of those pieces of # that like to point out Obama's "evil middle name"?
Originally posted by SonicInfinity
Hmm, why do you say "Barack Hussein Obama" and not "Hillary Rodham Clinton"? I hope you're not emphasizing his middle name or anything like that.
It makes you wonder if they're all being unconstitutional on purpose. You can never tell what these people are thinking. Even if Hillary being
Secretary of State is unconstitutional, if Obama can get past the system, I don't see how Hillary will be stopped.
Oh man, I'm sorry. I didn't see your post. But it's good to know that I'm not the only one that took notice. A star and an apology for you!
[edit on 1-12-2008 by zephyrs]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 02:25 PM by Wolf321
|
Originally posted by Ian McLean
They will apply the 'Saxby Fix'
Great info. However, it does make me question the fix itself. It seems very clear that the founders didn't want that. Unlike some amendments or
changes, that address omissions in the constitution, this one specifically changes it for the benefit of politicians.
[edit on 1-12-2008 by Wolf321]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:45 PM by yellowcard
|
Uhm, you are taking the Article and Section out of context, this deals with the separation of branches. The section is saying that you can't hold an
office in BOTH the Legislative and Executive branch. That's what the entire first article is about...  The secretary of state is not a newly
created position and has not had a pay increase from Hillary Clinton's term, thus there is no conflict of interest. The section seeks to prevent
congress from making high paying positions and being appointed to that position for personal financial gain...it's like promoting yourself.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:47 PM by jam321
|
Even if it isn't constitutional, who is going to have standing to get it heard by the Supreme Court? I don't think the Supreme Court likes touching
these kind of issues for some reason.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:52 PM by Wolf321
|
reply to post by yellowcard
You are partially right. It is saying you can't hold both offices, but it also says you cant take a position in which the pay was increased during
their term as a member of congress.
Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during
such time;
As Ian McLean already pointed out, this was remedied by the 'Saxby Fix' which I am more concerned about.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:21 PM by RRconservative
|
Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution
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.
Emoluments definition: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.
Senators make $165,200 a year. A cabinet official makes $191,300.
Her pay will be increased, and this is against the Constitution...The founding fathers obviously did not want Senators using their power to achieve
higher wealth because of their position.
The Constitution is pretty cut and dry on this issue. I wonder how this will be handled?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:30 PM by ModernAcademia
|
Everything is pure fakeness
There's no change, it's just another more hawkish clinton team without Bill
|
copyright & usage
|
|
