reply to post by forshow
Excerpts from
WND.com.
Yes, there is a very good reason for her not to be a legitimate selection. And I have YET to hear this mentioned on ANY MSM broadcast.
The Constitution (yep, there's that darn piece of paper again), states in the second clause of Article I, Section 6 that:
"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."
Simply put, Cabinet member's salaries increased during her term, thus making her or anyone else serving in the Senate or House INELLIGIBLE to be
selected as a candidate for a cabinet post.
But.....past President's have skirted this by reducing pay on those cabinet positions to what they were prior to the increase.
However, even though this fixes the salary increase, this does NOT eliminate the fact that the SALARY for SoS WAS INCREASED during her tenure as
Senator.
Why was this done?
James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the
evils" of corrupt governments where legislators created salaried positions – or increased the salary of positions – and then secured appointments
to the cushy jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in Colonial and British government, and they wrote Article 1,
Section 6 to prevent the practice.
Change? Looks like we haven't changed at all and are, in fact, repeating history.
