The Birthers' Next Target: Hillary Clinton?

The Birthers' Next Target: Hillary Clinton?

motherjones.com

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is interesting and a very real threat to Hillary Clinton being able to serve as Secretary of State. There is an emoluments clause in the Constitution that prohibits an elected sitting member of the House or Senate from taking a higher paying job with the Federal Government.

Because Clinton did not retire as a U.S. Senator during her Presidential run and was a U.S. Senator at the time she was appointed Secretary of State she is constitutionally ineligible for the job because it pays a higher salary than that of a U.S. Senator.

Senator Warren Hatch of Utah was similarly barred from becoming a Supreme Court Justice because it was a higher paying job than that of a Senator at the time the President wanted to nominate him from the Supreme Court.

It’s pretty cut and dried. I think Hillary is going to end up toast!


motherjones.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This whole issue was raised by birthers/teaparty et al when she was first nominated. It was nothing more than vacuous posturing then and nothing has changed. If the Republicans, who generally have highly paid researchers on their staff who are experts at obscure points of procedure, could not make the case then, the like of Orly Taitz aren't going to make it work now.

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.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

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."

www.wnd.com...

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?

If it turns out to be a problem that will just change the laws to suit her situation. Nothing will happen.

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.

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.

According to the article there does appear to be ways around the law, cheifly by rolling back salaries retroactively which has been done in some cases.

Still other Administrations like the Regan Administration felt doing that was a moral quagmire and simply passed on appointing Senators into high profile government positions for the sake of maintaining the veneer or propriety.

They can likely defeat the challenge by retro-actively stripping pay raises but it still requires a congressional vote to do that, and it does in fact display a public manipulation of the laws to get around the constitution doing it.

Will they do it? They likely will, how much controversy can the Obama administration and the Congress create and take though before they are looking at 20% approval ratings though?

Interesting still is the fact that Obama was likely saddled with Clinton as part of the 'deal' and he or Rahm may in fact slip the leash a bit if they have a genuine way to politically do her in without the smoking gun seen in their hands.

There are some interesting possibilities and scenarios here my friend.

How it plays out could be revealing of some other ellements at play within the Shadow Government.

This could prove to be a real test of a lot things.

Perhaps it will be nothing at all, but it's intriquing the possibilities.

Thanks for posting.

Mrs. Bill Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State should have been shot down as soon as she was nominated.

It is a shame that certain laws, such as McCain/Feingold, and the naming of Mrs. Bill Clinton to Secretary of State are allowed to proceed until the Supreme Court has time to judge the obvious unconstitutionality of the situation.

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.

reply to post by jackflap

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?

Thanks for the great addition JackFlap my friend.

It sure would be something to take out the dynamic duo and have the two main public powers and personalities in the government fall to the courts and the demands of the people.

Why if something like that were to actually happen people would get the idea we are actually living in a democracy.

Thanks for posting my friend.

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 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.

Actually you are partially right in that they took steps to legislate the roll back of salary raises to specifically lower the cap specifically for her.

It's been done before but morally its questionable as it is a deliberate orchestration that involves retroactive numbers manipulation to simply make the books currently reflect complaince even though the spirit and the letter of the law wasn't complied with at the actual time of appointment.

However the case brought by a State Department Employee is still pending and moving forward asking the courts to consider the true legallity of retroactively adjusting the salaries to meet the cap requirements.

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.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


If I understand this correctly they've already addressed this issue:

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...

Via: blogs.wsj.com...

But I suppose as long as lawsuits keep getting filed and pimped by the folks over at WND they are achieving what they are intending ... meh, I'm stuffed with all this bread, perhaps I'll go to one of them circuses.

reply to post by Carseller4

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.

The truth is this is what's really at play here friend and that is should it be acceptable for the very people who are charged to uphold and protect and defend the constitution to be engaging in dubious legal maneuvers to get around it and ignore it when it becomes an impedement to their personal ambitions?

For that is truly the case here, the cheif people responsible for protecting it and enforcing it conspiring to keep from having to abide by or adhere to it when it stands in the way of personal ambition.

With over 400 million citizens are we really going to believe that Hillary Clinton was by far and away the one most and best qualified for that job to the extent we are going to violate the Constitution for the supposed benefit of the nation of being so fortunate to have her in the job?

The truth is there is a wealth of better qualified people for Secretary of State who could be appointed to the office without having to violate the constitution and make special legistlation and laws just to manipulate it on paper to where it appears to be legal, yet certainly is not lawful?

reply to post by schrodingers dog

If I understand this correctly they've already addressed this issue:

It is what it is my friend and while you might be of the entitled opinion that such suits are frivolous the reality is that the only way that it was gotten around was through the enactment of special legislation to retroactively lower salaries for the specific point of simply meeting the cap to clear the constitutional bar and threshhold.

Yet retroactive is the key word, its people abusing their public position to simply reengineer history to make it appear on paper presently like it didn't and should have for it to be lawful at the time.

I think its a pathetic way for any government or organization to do business.

If the fundamental rules don't apply evenly and consistently to all people then the laws don't work for the people, they work against the people.

Retroactively changing things months later to maintain that kind of appearance is not 'taking care' of something unless your name is Alfonso Capone!

Thanks.

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?

Do me a favor and save me a seat and pack me a case JackFlap on that shuttle.

Honestly I don't know if it is a position beneath Obama that she has, she is after all the one who is travelling abroad the most, dealing with foreign leaders and promoting the military industrialists and bankers world wide agenda.

There are by the way at least six different government department head jobs that the Powers that Be consider to be more important than the President's job because of the specific area of access and control that department head has.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Heh, it is by no means my position that I agree with what they did or that I endorse it by any means ... I just posted the information to point out that someone seems to have went through the process of covering their bases and asses.

Capriciously changing the applicable rules to suit a partisan or political ambition negates the spirit of the constitution.

Furthermore I welcome these lawsuits, let it all come out in the wash so to speak. Though I hardly expect, nor do I think the folks behind the suit expect, any real remedy. Hence the observation that though the thought and intent may have merit, it is usually undertaken by parties who's motives are often as dubious as those of the aforementioned government's.

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.

Yeah, the same with Obama's birth cert. right? I would not hold my breath if I were you. When you do find that magical place where politicians are not morally ambiguous, let me know. Until then, enjoy SOS Clinton because she will be there at least 3 more years.

I will be back in 3 years to brag about being a psychic.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

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.

There is no doubt that this was planned. They tried covering their bases it seems to me. Will they actually get away with it? You bet.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Actually according to the predictions thread the world ends 17 and 1/2 times before that!

It's not concerning partisan politics as far as my own view, its about as a citizen speaking up and out and against governmental abuses.

I don't feel inclined to make an excuse for them because the truth is the same politicians would not make an excuse for me in the event of any of my improprieties coming to light.

Sadly partisan politics itself becomes an excuse for some people looking to excuse the fact that the politicians don't have to follow the laws but we the people do.

If I had my way every bum in Washington which is everyone in Washington would be kicked to the curb regardless of their party or position.

With unemployment what it is, the deficit what it is, the economy what it is, none of them deserve to have the jobs they do if all they can do is seek out ways to skirt the laws personally, enrich themselves, and see to their own posterity, and that's all any of them are doing, democrat and republican alike.

We are going to be stuck with an increasinly expensive, intrusive, incompetent government if we don't all start speaking out and stop making excuses.

The Fish is rotten from the head down.