It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Tue Feb. 16, 2010 2:30 AM PST
Ever since Barack Obama started running for the White House, he’s been plagued by lawsuits from detractors who claim that he is not a natural-born citizen, and thus is ineligible to serve as president. Now the devoted conspiracy theorists of the so-called "eligibility movement" have a fresh target: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And there’s a chance that the Supreme Court might hear their challenge.
In January 2009, a longtime foreign service officer named David C. Rodearmel sued Hillary Clinton in federal court in DC arguing that an obscure provisi
Hillary's eligibility challenged in Supreme Court Can political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution?
"The Supreme Court has an obligation to settle the Ineligibility Clause issue once and for all," said Fitton. "If our government and courts will not observe even the plain and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution, then we are cut adrift from the anchor of law and liberty and the rule of law is in jeopardy. We hope the Supreme Court takes this opportunity to vindicate the Constitution."
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Before Obama, there was twenty years of Bush and Clinton. Hilary's appointment to Secratery Of State surprised me not at all. The laws get made up as we go along and as it suits those who are pulling strings.
I'll be more than adequately surprised if anything comes of this.
Found another source for this intriguing story. Wouldn't it be a real hoot if Clinton and Obama were found to be ineligible to hold the positions that they hold?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
This is actually a really old story and Hilliary took care of the necessary steps to make sure that she did not violate the law. This would be why people that hate her so much and are in a position to do something about it, did not.
Public Law 110-455 (122 Stat. 5036-5037) states that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State (Secretary) shall be those in effect 1 January 2007, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any provision of law or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of 3 January 2007, and ending at noon of 3 January 2013.
It states that: (1) any person aggrieved by an action of the Secretary may bring a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (under a three-judge panel) to contest the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution; (2) the Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such action; and (3) an appeal may be taken directly to the U.S. Supreme Court from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, entered in any action brought under this resolution.
It makes this resolution effective at noon of 20 January 2009. (Bill: S.J. Res. 46) www.glin.gov...
All members of Congress, and the President himself, take an oath to uphold the Constitution, then they knowingly make laws and make appointments that go against it. It doesn't make sense.
If I understand this correctly they've already addressed this issue:
Originally posted by jackflap
I find it all so funny. Here she is running for President of the United States and bringing up all of Obama's shortcomings, only to take a position beneath him in his administration. It's laughable. We are some serious sheep. Where is the next shuttle off this planet?
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
How far the case goes is anyone's guess, but no, it's not old news in that its over and done.
The case is still pending and active and on the calendar.
Thanks for posting.
The newly filed brief states "the salary of the U.S. Secretary of State was increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's second term in the U.S. Senate. A subsequent 'rollback' of the salary by Congress does nothing to remedy this ineligibility for office, as no such 'work around' is authorized by the Constitution and cannot alter the fact that these increases in salary occurred." "The Joint Resolution did not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office … increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate. "At the core of the case is the casual disregard of a clear and unambiguous directive of the Constitution," the brief states.