Would Hillary’s Appointment To Secretary Of State Be Unconstitutional?

• November 26, 2008

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.

What this means is that a member of Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time he/she held office in Congress. Since the pay for the Secretary of State has gone up in the last year that would appear to preclude Hillary from getting appointed.
And even if the pay were reduced, by a strict reading of the text (which may or may not even matter to the powers that be these days given how little respect there is out here for what the Constitution actually says) that still wouldn’t be enough.
Hillary may want to be Secretary of State, but it doesn’t look like she can be.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array di butler

Shush! I want Hillary as SoS! This will be better than any soap opera ever written. I’m ready to pop the popcorn. Let the games begin……….
ellinas

Yes Neiman. They violate the law, unless there is something, some new regulation we do not know about.
ellinas

Right. No reason to actually follow the constitution or anything.

Rob on November 25, 2008 at 04:00 pm

No reason whatsoever. Kevin has it right: “It’s never bothered the Clintons before in their pursuit of power.”
Like the Clintons are doing this or something.

Kevin, You exude wisdom.
RebTex

At the time, Sen. Robert C. Byrd deemed it was clearly unconstitutional saying we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.

Looks like someone had a problem with it in the past……
Claude

We don’t need no stinking constitution, let’s just “do what’s right.”
Neiman

This has happened numerous times before.
The appointees go in at the old pay or something.

In other words, they violate the law?
ellinas

Shush! I want Hillary as SoS! This will be better than any soap opera ever written. I’m ready to pop the popcorn. Let the games begin……….

di butler on November 25, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Popcorn huh? Buttered or plain?
ellinas

RebTex. Nice one. LMAO
http://www.myspace.com/thekingscourt4u Gman

They got Capone on mail fraud.

It’s worth a shot.
bill-tb

Just too funny. What was it that Obama said about the obstacles of the Constitution getting in the way of progress? Just depends on what you mean by progress.

My guess is we are going to hear a lot more from our new born Constitutional scholars in the coming years. I for one am not willing to give America away for some socialist pipe dream.

We’re all Constitutional scholars now — LOL.
RebTex

Ya’ll know why bill plays the saxophone?
>
>
>
He lost his whore, Monica….
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

It’s never bothered the Clintons before in their pursuit of power.
Judy

We have something worded like this in our state constitution in WV. A few years ago, the Speaker of the House of our legislature (Robert Kiss) was appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy on our Supreme Court. It was challenged because the Supreme Court Justices salaries had been raised while he was Speaker in the House. He was not allowed to serve on the Supreme Court.
http://norseberserker.blogspot.com/ JD

Not likely. Say, “No” to Clintons! We didn’t like them then. We don’t like them now.
WOOFX

The end of the Republic, for sure.

Times are hard
You’re afraid to pay the fee
So you find yourself somebody
Who can do the job for free
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

This has happened numerous times before.
The appointees go in at the old pay or something.

Right. No reason to actually follow the constitution or anything.
WOOFX

This is not the first time this Article has stood in the way of a cabinet appointment. In 1973, at the height of Watergate, President Richard Nixon nominated William Saxbe (R) to be Attorney General and the issue was raised because Saxbe was in the Senate in 1969 when the Attorney General’s pay was raised.

In that instance, Congress lowered the pay for the AG, allowing the appointment to proceed. Democratic Senators complained, however, and 10 senators actually voted against the transparent scheme on constitutional grounds. At the time, Sen. Robert C. Byrd deemed it was clearly unconstitutional saying we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.

Think of the alternatives, like Bill.
WOOFX

This has happened numerous times before.
The appointees go in at the old pay or something.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Would Hillary’s Appointment To Secretary Of State Be Unconstitutional?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments