Hillary Secretary of State Appointment is Unconstitutional!

[Knightskye]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/clinton-obama-2.html


"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."

I wonder if they'll do it anyway. :rolleyes:

[puppetmaster]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/clinton-obama-2.html



I wonder if they'll do it anyway. :rolleyes:


says "HE" and I think the hill is a "she"....so that's the out...LOL:D

[Knightskye]

says "HE" and I think the hill is a "she"....so that's the out...LOL:D

I didn't understand what you said there. :eek:

[yaz]

Hillary would quit first though.

[qh4dotcom]

Did Hillary vote to increase the pay of Condi Rice whom she'll be replacing?

[bojo68]

It's precedent now, if we're to have an unconstitutional president, we have to have an unconstitutional cabinet too.

[constitutional]

I didn't understand what you said there. :eek:

He means the Constitution refers to the Senator as a HE, Hillary is a she.

"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."

[Roxi]

but will her time as senator be over by the time she takes the position? and if not would it matter if she resigned as senator?

[angelatc]

but will her time as senator be over by the time she takes the position? and if not would it matter if she resigned as senator?

A legal blog I read has had several entries on the subject, and the unanimous consensus is that technically her appointment would be illegal.

Resigning the seat would not matter, because the wording was phrased specifically to prevent that. It says "during the Time for which he was elected," which means until the end of the term she was elected to serve.

There have been at least 2 instances of the law being ignored previously. If she takes the post, Obama will be joining two other great decision makers, Nixon and Carter, is allowing Congress to override the Constitution.

Nixon's appointee, Saxbe, was allowed to ascend after he agreed to take the position at the former salary until his elected term expired. Congress decided that would be good enough.

To me, this points out that Obama's whole intent of studying the Constitution was to figure out how to do end runs around it. I mean, why worry about what the founders said, when you can just decide what they meant to say, and what they would probably say today. It's so much easier than amending the damned Constitution, and nobody cares anyway.

For the record, the SOS has ultimate authority over the State Department, and so anybody who gets turned down for a passport would have standing to challenge her authority. The issue has never gone to the Supreme Court.

But welcome back to the endless dramas of the Clinton family.Sigh.

[Matt Collins]

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82374

Hillary to head State: Is it constitutional?
Founding Fathers included clause that prevents Clinton appointment
Posted: November 30, 2008
6:03 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

http://worldnetdaily.com/images/hillary4-21.jpg

Barack Obama, it has been reported, intends to announce Sen. Hillary Clinton (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82374#)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.

But wait! Is the entire Barack Obama administration unconstitutional? Where's the proof he was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural-born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate. (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550)

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.

[LittleLightShining]

To me, this points out that Obama's whole intent of studying the Constitution was to figure out how to do end runs around it. I mean, why worry about what the founders said, when you can just decide what they meant to say, and what they would probably say today. It's so much easier than amending the damned Constitution, and nobody cares anyway.

Seems that way to me, too :mad:

[Mort]

I don't see the big deal here. She will resign as Senator.

[Andrew-Austin]

You are all a bunch of sexists!

[Roxi]

I don't see the big deal here. She will resign as Senator.


read again:


]Resigning the seat would not matter,[/B] because the wording was phrased specifically to prevent that. It says "during the Time for which he was elected," which means until the end of the term she was elected to serve.

[LittleLightShining]

I don't see the big deal here. She will resign as Senator.
But she isn't allowed by law to accept the position until her term has expired, resignation or no. Unfortunately the precedent set by Saxbe is going to present a challenge.

[fr33domfightr]

This was being discussed on CNN this morning, but I only caught the tail end of the story, so I don't know what was said, but it was about Hillary's appointment and about it being Constitutional or not.


FF

[JohnJay]

. . .But wait! Is the entire Barack Obama administration unconstitutional? Where's the proof he was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural-born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? . . .

There really is ample evidence that Obama was born in Hawai'i on August 4, 1961 -
but you have to be objective with open eyes.

But back to this thread topic . . .really, this unconstitutional appointment of Senators to the Obama cabinet may have some teeth to it.

Should we be contacting our Senators to start a campaign to vote against these nominations - to demand the US Constitution be upheld or face Senate censure or something ?

[Ron Paul Vermont]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/01/am.toobin.clinton.clause.cnn

Here is the video that someone mentioned. It was a typical CNN newstory. They ripped the constitution. "hey it was written in 1787" (they got the date wrong) and they were like... well who is going to inforce it.... it does not matter... All the typical garbage that they always put in.

[Mort]

read again:


]Resigning the seat would not matter,[/B] because the wording was phrased specifically to prevent that. It says "during the Time for which he was elected," which means until the end of the term she was elected to serve.

I'd be surprised if this was the first time in history a member of congress resigned to join a cabinet.

[JohnJay]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/01/am.toobin.clinton.clause.cnn

. . . "hey it was written in 1787" (they got the date wrong)

Thanks for the link -
great to hear the discussion about just who has the right to sue and have standing in
constitutional cases like this and the continuing saga of McCain's Panama problem.

- fer' the record there mate the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 -
not sure why the guest changed to say 1789 (ratification ?)

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/01/am.toobin.clinton.clause.cnn

Here is the video that someone mentioned. It was a typical CNN newstory. They ripped the constitution. "hey it was written in 1787" (they got the date wrong) and they were like... well who is going to inforce it.... it does not matter... All the typical garbage that they always put in.

This is the trend, eh?

But across the nation, we have 1000's of stupid "Blue Laws" that are enforced that were written and passed 100's of years ago.

Democracy should be CHANGED to Hypocrisy!

Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, General Gates, Susan Rice... where's the F#$King CHANGE?

Here's a perfect example of there's NO difference between the 2 party dictatorship.

Anyone catch Obama's response to the PRESS on pulling the troops out of IRAQ? No CHANGE from BUSH... One government, about government, for government.

[JohnJay]

I'd be surprised if this was the first time in history a member of congress resigned to join a cabinet.


The resigning is not the problem or appointing a Senator per se not the problem -
it was that these Senators increased the salary for an office they are now nominated to hold.

[mczerone]

To me, this points out that Obama's whole intent of studying the Constitution was to figure out how to do end runs around it. I mean, why worry about what the founders said, when you can just decide what they meant to say, and what they would probably say today. It's so much easier than amending the damned Constitution, and nobody cares anyway.

This was my biggest point Against Obama all election season: it is not better that we have a politician so well versed in the Constitution - because in his case it just means he will be better at getting around it. Rumsfeld and BushCo at least got their foot caught in the net a couple of times, Obama (and a very "change"-based administration) is likely to just run roughshod over the clauses he doesn't like, and excuse it with some "I know what the constitution was "meant" to do, so it's okay that I did this, even though you would have stormed the White House if Bush, or even Clinton, had tried..."

It hadn't even occurred to me to check his appointments for constitutionality - I was waiting to criticize his policy. Is this enough to impeach him yet?

[ItsTime]

Anyone catch Obama's response to the PRESS on pulling the troops out of IRAQ? No CHANGE from BUSH... One government, about government, for government.


Yup it was pure bullshit artist at his best.

[Mortikhi]

He means the Constitution refers to the Senator as a HE, Hillary is a she.

"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."

Bah. In English, if the sex isn't known, he is the word to use.

[Matt Collins]

I was waiting to criticize his policy.Why wait?

[ItsTime]

Bah. In English, if the sex isn't known, he is the word to use.

do you have a good online source for that info? Im getting all the Obamabots jumping on me because it says "he" and she is a she so it does not apply to her.

Sadly that is the best they can come up with as a defence.

[PatriotLegion]

do you have a good online source for that info? Im getting all the Obamabots jumping on me because it says "he" and she is a she so it does not apply to her.

Sadly that is the best they can come up with as a defence.

So the Obamabots think that the Constitution does not apply to women or they have separate rules? That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard! The Constitution is clearly stated and the difference between the word he/she is little. At the time of the writing women were not seen as leaders among the people, times change but the rule of the Constitution has not (excluding all the new amendments for times changing).

So to counter the Obamabots then if the Constitution only say's "HE" then all women Congresswomen, Senators, Mayors, Governors, Councilwomen and any other civil service elected seats are then all Unconstitutional and should be voided now along with the bills that were created by them, same with all there votes!!! So does that sound ignorant?

Sorry for the rant!

[Matt Collins]

Someone just told me that "Cabinet isn't under the Authority" as it is spelled out in the Constitution. Does this make any sense.

[angelatc]

I'd be surprised if this was the first time in history a member of congress resigned to join a cabinet.

You're missing the whole point. Go read Article 1. She has to resign to join the cabinet. We're talking about the clause that says she can't legally take the job because the pay was raised while she was a member of Congress.

[angelatc]

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/10/sex-symbols.html

The 18th century would be the 1700's, right? Wait for the Obabamots to bring that up before you correct them though. :)

[angelatc]

Someone just told me that "Cabinet isn't under the Authority" as it is spelled out in the Constitution. Does this make any sense.

Absolutely. It means they're making things up and grasping at straws.

The mere existance of the Saxbe clause proves them wrong.

[Knightskye]

He means the Constitution refers to the Senator as a HE, Hillary is a she.

"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."

That's grammar.

"Say there's a customer. He goes to the store and buys himself a couple windshield wipers."

I don't see the problem. It applies to people.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yup it was pure bullshit artist at his best.

Lawyer aka BullShyt Artist! ;)


So the SAME CHANGE... Susan Rice, Hillary, Eric Holder


Is there ANYBODY LEFT from the CLINTON administration that hasn't been hired?

Mob Rule Democracy has morphed into: Socialist Hypocrisy!

[Knightskye]

Lawyer aka BullShyt Artist! ;)


So the SAME CHANGE... Susan Rice, Hillary, Eric Holder


Is there ANYBODY LEFT from the CLINTON administration that hasn't been hired?

Mob Rule Democracy has morphed into: Socialist Hypocrisy!

Be on the lookout for George Stephanopoulos as some kind of press secretary. :D

[Carole]

This was my biggest point Against Obama all election season: it is not better that we have a politician so well versed in the Constitution - because in his case it just means he will be better at getting around it. Rumsfeld and BushCo at least got their foot caught in the net a couple of times, Obama (and a very "change"-based administration) is likely to just run roughshod over the clauses he doesn't like, and excuse it with some "I know what the constitution was "meant" to do, so it's okay that I did this, even though you would have stormed the White House if Bush, or even Clinton, had tried..."

It hadn't even occurred to me to check his appointments for constitutionality - I was waiting to criticize his policy. Is this enough to impeach him yet?

SS DD

Each day I draw closer to loving anarchy and NO government. :)

[Goldwater64]

Ok…here it goes:


It is unconstitutional but there is no way to address this problem.

No one has a cause of action to sue over.

This has happened before and someone sued, the case made it to the supreme court who ruled that while unconstitutional, no one is affected by this enough to have a cause of action.

It is breaking the rules, but according to the supreme court, no one is harmed enough by this breaking of the rules to have an issue at controversy in front of the courts.

[Knightskye]

Ok…here it goes:


It is unconstitutional but there is no way to address this problem.

No one has a cause of action to sue over.

This has happened before and someone sued, the case made it to the supreme court who ruled that while unconstitutional, no one is affected by this enough to have a cause of action.

It is breaking the rules, but according to the supreme court, no one is harmed enough by this breaking of the rules to have an issue at controversy in front of the courts.

So unless the pay is raised by tens of millions of dollars, you can't file a suit on behalf of taxpayers?

Hmm.

They should still go for stopping the nomination. The Constitution should be enforced.

[Minlawc]

Wolf Blitzer's going to be talking about this soon.

[Matt Collins]

Wolf Blitzer's going to be talking about this soon.I'm sure he'll just marginalize it.

[Minlawc]

I'm sure he'll just marginalize it.

Not as much as I thought he would.

It looks like they are going for the Saxby Fix. At least they're not ignoring the issue.

[Matt Collins]

It looks like they are going for the Saxby Fix. At least they're not ignoring the issue.But the Saxbe fix is a bad precedent. It is in accordance with the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law. Even if they roll back the salary to pre-term levels, that is not really a Constitutional fix.

[Knightskye]

I'm sure he'll just marginalize it.

Just like he did with Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

[hotbrownsauce]

Judicial watch is "a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. "

Judicial watch announced Hillary is unable of serving as Secretary of State.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s

[HOLLYWOOD]

Judicial watch is "a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. "

Judicial watch announced Hillary is unable of serving as Secretary of State.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s

Tell this to ANY of the members of the United States Governmental Judicial System "politicians" appointed to the courts. You papers have been filed into the government's Circular filing cabinet.

Now go back to being Obedient of we'll throw up in one of our Federal People's Pens.