Hillary Clinton is NOT ELIGIBLE to serve as Secretary of State

In a hearing last week (Rodearmal v. Clinton), a lawsuit is challenging Hillary Clinton's Constitutional Eligibility for Secretary of State. The challenge was filed on behalf of a State Department Foreign Service officer.

At issue is Hillary Clinton's constitutional ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State. Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

"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."

This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's resignation.

Source

Conveniently, the media has conspired to keep this secret.

OMG!!! Great find! So another person who is not eligible to serve in our government in the positions they are in, TPTB have been putting people in positions for a very long time without the public truly being aware of the Constitution Laws that were and are being broken but know this!

This is to set a presidence for the Supreme Courts to overrule or change or abolish the U.S. Constitution once and for all!

Great thread and let's hope this gets out to the public so that more people wake up to the curruption.

WOW, email this to Beck and Dobbs and O'Reilly!

It is interesting though, that Hillary has been looking for a way out of this administration, and now she can gain some political points by offering to resign to stop any scandal, and resume her post as a Senator, and she can begin her campaign for President!!

I have a feeling, this will hit the news hard for a very short time, and then Hillary will become the hero of the moment by taking all the backlash and resigning her position!

I'm fairly certain if you look at it, she stepped down from her elected position before accepted SoS. As most do.

Which makes this thread moot, irrelevant, and nothing but grasping at straws.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


No, it doesn't matter if she stepped down, it is still during the time in which she was elected.

In other words, she influenced a pay raise for a position that she would later accept! That is why the rule was written. (Too bad we don't have a rule to keep Congress from voting its own pay raises!)

I think this will get somewhere. As I said, she will profit politically from it, and it is an easy way out of the administration without burning bridges within the party!!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No, it doesn't matter if she stepped down, it is still during the time in which she was elected.

In other words, she influenced a pay raise for a position that she would later accept! That is why the rule was written. (Too bad we don't have a rule to keep Congress from voting its own pay raises!)

I think this will get somewhere. As I said, she will profit politically from it, and it is an easy way out of the administration without burning bridges within the party!!

I disagree, and I believe there would be no grounds to move on this.

Once you step down, you are no longer an elected official. Now, admittedly, I am no political scholar, but if this were a true issue, it would have come up before.
Edmund Muskie, for one, was in the exact same position.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Yep, that was my first thought. If she stepped down then she should be eligible but that is only a way out of the second part. She is ineligible until her original term in office is over, 2013! It specifically mentions the "time period" for which she was elected for.

I am concerned, however, about legal precedent. Many of our secretaries of state and other office holders have been appointed by the president all the way back to Washington. If we have ignored it for that long then the courts will simply find legal precedent and let it be.

I like her in that position(thats what she said) but for her sake, I think she may have found a way out and if so good for her!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by memarf1]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
WOW, email this to Beck and Dobbs and O'Reilly!

What's a shock to me is that Fox News hasn't jumped down this and started spewing their political poison. It wouldn't be the first time the illustrious Fox News jumps on a story that was still in the early stages with no proof it will go anywhere.

But then again, this isn't the first time "We the people" have tried coming down hard on the Clinton family. I'm thinking they have Super Man powers because they seem to dodge bullet after bullet after....


-Sliadon

This is old, I read it before she ever took office. And they lowered the salary, allowing her to take office. Just like Nixon did for his AG, so there's precident.

s/f

this is a great find.

hillary is living history of the kind of individual i do not want in leadership; a greed monger, unethical in her dealings, imho.

this may be old news; however, it shows the clinton crime family: www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com...

"Kim Weissman writes in a Congress Action update on July 13, 1997,

"One of the many troubling aspects of this affair is how the cesspool of corruption which the Clintons brought to Washington can cause even the most honorable men to prostitute their principles, attempting to defend the indefensible." www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com...



"In December 2000, Simon & Schuster agreed to pay Clinton a reported $8 million advance for what became Living History — a near-record figure to an author for an advance at that time.[1] Critics charged that the book deal, coming soon after her election to the U.S. Senate, but before being sworn into office, was not in adherence to the ethical standards required for members of the U.S. Senate.[2] However, in February 2001, the Senate Ethics Committee gave Clinton approval for the deal.[3] en.wikipedia.org...

"... The smartest decision I made was to ask Lissa Muscatine, Maryanne Vollers and Ruby Shamir to spend two years of their lives working with me." en.wikipedia.org... yet never received credit for co-writing the book.en.wikipedia.org...

she was fired for unethical behavior "Hillary fired for lies, unethical behavior from Congressional job: former boss
posted at 5:55 pm on April 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:

what about whitewater and the lost and found records "TED KOPPEL (VO): The accusation? Obstruction of justice, knowingly withholding subpoenaed documents. The location? A book room on the third floor of the White House, a room in the first family's private quarters. Tonight, the mystery of the lost and found records." www.pbs.org...

and all those who committed suicide under their administration referred to as the clinton casualties: www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com...

and she and bill are loved in this country. the two depict the quintessential embodiment of corruption.

including the bush babies.







[edit on 23-9-2009 by musselwhite]

One reason the conservatives may not bring this up is because that law could have its constitutionality challenged.

Originally posted by Ethera
One reason the conservatives may not bring this up is because that law could have its constitutionality challenged.

Or because it is totally bogus.

Before posting something like this, the OP should get all of the facts. This is not the first time that this situation has happened (in fact it pretty much is common in most administrations -- I think one poster pointed out a case during the Nixon administration).

There are standard procedures to follow and which are always followed to avoid getting caught by this rule -- and they were followed then this time.

Let's also be reasonable and give the Republicans some credit. Both political parties are loaded with lawyers and have extensive legal vultures to scrutinize every move the other makes to try and catch them on exactly this sort of issue. If this was an illegal move, the GOP would be all over it and making it into media gold.

You have to admit, playing "gotcha" with the law is an art form in Washington.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by metamagic]

obviously you just have a problem with having a woman for secretary of state and you probably a racist too .........just kidding ,but it does sound ridiculous right?

reply to post by metamagic


You know, its funny... you would think that if this was true, that they found a way around the constitution, then this lawsuit would have been dismissed as being frivolous from the outset and would have never gotten this far...


Now, why didn't that happen?!

Q. Didn’t Congress fix this problem when it voted on December 10, 2008 to lower the Secretary of State’s salary to the level it was at the beginning of Mrs. Clinton’s second term?

A. This “work-around” is not authorized by the Constitution. Other clauses do provide for removing a Constitutional ineligibility by Congressional action. For example, Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 8 provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [the United States] shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” (emphasis added). Another example is Amendment XIV, Sec. 3, which prohibits holding federal office by any person who, having served in a federal or state office under oath to support the Constitution, engages in insurrection, rebellion, or aiding the enemies of the United States, but providing that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” There is no provision for Congress to remove the disability set forth in the Disability (or “Emoluments”) Clause.

Q. Haven’t other cabinet secretaries served after Congress passed similar fixes?

A. Yes. The salary-lowering “work-around” is known as the “Saxbe Fix,” named after Ohio Senator William Saxbe who was appointed Attorney General in the Nixon administration. Despite earlier Attorney General opinions warning that it is unconstitutional, the “Saxbe Fix” has been used four times since 1909 by administrations of both parties. The Obama administration has now nominated four more members of Congress to cabinet positions which will require the “Saxbe Fix” to attempt to avoid the Constitution’s Disability Clause: Senators Hillary Clinton
(State), Ken Salazar (Interior), Judd Gregg (Commerce), and Representative Hilda Solis (Labor).

Q. Why hasn’t this question been decided before?

A. The courts have never ruled on whether the Saxbe Fix can avoid the Constitution’s Disability Clause, because earlier challenges have been dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the issues. But Congress is apparently inviting judicial resolution of the question, as “Saxbe Fix” bills for both Senators Clinton and Salazar include provisions facilitating legal standing and providing for expedited trial and direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source

Now... who's the one that didn't do their research?!







[edit on 9/23/2009 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by Ethera
One reason the conservatives may not bring this up is because that law could have its constitutionality challenged.

Uhhh....

It IS a part of the constitution.... How can the constitution itself NOT BE CONSTITUTIONAL?!?!

LOL, they don't quit do they? Once they couldn't do anything with their erroneous charges against Obama they move on to Clinton. ROFLMAO, it is sad really, not to mention preposterous and ridiculous. These people need to get a life (or here's an idea: ACTUALLY WORK TO BETTER THE COUNTRY)... I shoulda' known it wouldn't be long before this "ineligibility" magically popped up on ATS and everywhere else, lol. Who's next? Biden?

Stunningly ridiculous.....

[edit on 9/23/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


this is your classic strawman logical fallacy. overstating or misrepresenting the claims being presented because, totally exaggerated and false claims presented by the critic are much easier to refute than to refute the original claims actually being presented.

So much for "working for a better country" when you seem more interested in subverting the law of the land in favor of PARTISAN favoritism, corporatism, statism, and fascism.

sorry, but you'll have to try harder than that.


(BTW, who is this mysterious "they" that you speak of?)

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by metamagic

 

You know, its funny... you would think that if this was true, that they found a way around the constitution, then this lawsuit would have been dismissed as being frivolous from the outset and would have never gotten this far...
... snip ...
Now... who's the one that didn't do their research?!

Pretty impressive quoting there.. and it pretty much supports what I said. I suppose I should have stressed the point of my post a bit more clearly by saying "If this was an blatantly and obviously illegal move, the GOP would be all over it and making it into media gold. "

Since it is late, I am tired and I'm out of coffee, I'll just respond informally so...

In my post I clearly stated that

playing "gotcha" with the law is an art form in Washington. "

which usually shows up in endless legal actions on points of procedural law. Generally speaking, when we descend in to the tangled mass of procedural law -- which this is -- for many procedural issues it is possible to find conflicting rules that can apply to either side of the argument. The challenge in fron of the court in these situations is to determine which of the conflicting rules are more applicable in specific case. It is entirely possible that something is ruled legal when there are conflicting rules which it breaks -- it is a matter of which is the "more" legal procedure at that moment and under the specific set of circumstances.

Don't go confusing this with substantive law which deals with claims, offences and matters of criminality, tort and contracts for example. Procedural law is about how you do administer the laws and rules. Whether you are guilty of murder or not is a matter of substantive law but the rules of evidence (like chain of custody) are procedural.

The debate over Hillary Clinton is procedural. Just because there are legal actions filed over this doesn't mean that there is anything legal or illegal about it in the substantive sense -- and quite frankly the arguments about procedure are a pretty common way to play legal "gotcha."

Like I said, if it was obviously illegal procedurally, the GOP would have been all over it politically. But at this point, it really is a matter of interpretation by the courts. And even if the procedure is found to be applied incorrectly, there is whole other lot of stuff that factors in that may mean that the ultimate resolution of the legal action is to allow it for some reason with the provisio that it not be done again.

Remember, this is the stuff that lawyers love because it's all a matter of finding the right rules that support your side and giving it the right spin.

So you have to step outside the "I'm right and you're wrong box" and see the larger game that is being played out in the courts and in the political area.



[edit on 23-9-2009 by metamagic]

reply to post by metamagic


except that, no.... your arguments are entirely frivolous.

the whole "if it was true the media would be all over it!" is another tired old logical fallacy often perpetuated by people seeking to silence dissent and deflect from the truth...

And the fact that the corporate media is not covering is, THAT is the conspiracy. They are in on it, maaaaaan!!!

Maintain the status quo, distract from the truth, support the corporate aristocracy because they are nothing more than pawns.

And the republicans?! They all work for the same people. Why would they upset their masters?! this whole idea of two separate parties is just an illusion designed to distract from the fact that there is only one, totalitarian statist party.

we are all slaves and our government is designed to keep us complacent.

im sorry, but you'll have to try harder

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by metamagic

 

except that, no.... your arguments are entirely frivolous.

Really? Do you mean in the sense of being humorous and carefree, or in the sense of being not worthy of consideration? I would suggest that basing an argument on the difference between substantive law and procedural law is neither of these things when it applies to an issue of the legality of a political appointment.

It certainly seems that to avoid responding the points raised, you have tried to duck them by dismissing them as "frivolous". I would respectfully request that you either explain why they are "frivolous" or respond to the issue raised.

the whole "if it was true the media would be all over it!" is another tired old logical fallacy often perpetuated by people seeking to silence dissent and deflect from the truth...

Well first of there is no "Media all over it" logical fallacy.. if you didn't make it up, perhaps you might identify which fallacy you actually are referring to.

Second of all, I never raised issues of truth. I pointed out (and I do it AGAIN for your sake so pay attention please) that if it was obviously illegal (note that the word "truth" appears no where in there) then it would be too good to pass up as political ammunition for the GOP to take pot shots at the Dems. So if it is illegal, then it is not obviously so.

And the fact that the corporate media is not covering is, THAT is the conspiracy. They are in on it, maaaaaan!!!

Maintain the status quo, distract from the truth, support the corporate aristocracy because they are nothing more than pawns.

This is nothing more than a rant. The media don't cover everything since they only have limited time and resources, but to call it a conspiracy needs something more than just your say so. I'm not a great fan of corporate media since I think they have screwed up priorities when it comes to deciding what to cover, but I think more realistically it is because they are trying to cover news that generates revenue -- you know, like Brittany Spears and manufactured political debates -- rather than the critical issues of the day. It's not conspiracy, it's capitalism at work.. cover only the news that bring in the readers.

And the rest of your comments there are just name calling and wild accusations. Why not try providing something to back up these accusations? That I would like to see.

And the republicans?! They all work for the same people. Why would they upset their masters?! this whole idea of two separate parties is just an illusion designed to distract from the fact that there is only one, totalitarian statist party.

we are all slaves and our government is designed to keep us complacent.

im sorry, but you'll have to try harder

Lot of ranting there. Veiled references to "them" and shadowy forces but nothing of substance to comment on.

As for trying harder.. no amount of effort on my part will compensate for a lack of logic or substance on your part -- and certainly not until you respond with substance instead of rants.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by metamagic]

[edit on 23-9-2009 by metamagic]