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.

 

[puppetmaster]

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



I wonder if they'll do it anyway.

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

 

[Knightskye]

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

I didn't understand what you said there.

 

[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.

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

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Hillary to head State: Is it constitutional?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Founding Fathers included clause that prevents Clinton appointment[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: November 30, 2008
6:03 pm Eastern

[/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Drew Zahn[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] © 2008 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

Barack Obama, it has been reported, intends to announce Sen. Hillary Clintonas 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.

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

 

[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:

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

 

[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:

[QUOTE]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.

[/QUOTE]

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 ?)