Hillary Clinton is NOT ELIGIBLE to serve as Secretary of State

Since Obama in essence "buried" Hillary politically by naming her Secretary of State, and then ignoring her with his own personal advisors and the legion of Czars, she may very well find this as an opportunity to get the hell out of one disaster of an Administration.

The farther she can distance herself to Obama the sooner, the better for her own political ambitions.

She is no fool.

In fact, I would not be shocked that SHE didn't put this guy up to the lawsuit.

Gives her a legal "out."

reply to post by sp00n1


Holy Crap! Come on, people! When does this stop! Let's look at the section in question:

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.

US Constitution

Let's look at the first half, "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;". Well, the position was not created while she was a Senator, and unless it pays more now than it did when she was re-elected in 2006, it does not apply.

Now to the second part, "and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.". Since she resigned her seat in the Senate prior to being sworn in as Secretary of State, this doesn't either.

Just another partisan BS lawsuit! Both parties need to GROW THE FRAK UP! Idiots!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by sp00n1

 

Holy Crap! Come on, people! When does this stop! Let's look at the section in question:

Just another partisan BS lawsuit! Both parties need to GROW THE FRAK UP! Idiots!

Absolutely right.. but then you know that both parties are full of lawyers that love to do politics by playing legal gotcha. I suspect that they get so wrapped up in their procedural motions and the sense of self importance it brings that they forget that it's not the real world any more... My grandmother used to all it "arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"

Wasnt this issue resolved already?

Secretary of state salary cut for Clinton

Just asking

reply to post by metamagic


What i am suggesting is that your arguments rely on subterfuge and misdirections instead of facing the allegations straight on.

Smoke and mirrors.

On the battlefield, smoke is used not only to conceal your movements but also as an irritant.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by sp00n1

 

Holy Crap! Come on, people! When does this stop! Let's look at the section in question:

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.

US Constitution

Let's look at the first half, "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;". Well, the position was not created while she was a Senator, and unless it pays more now than it did when she was re-elected in 2006, it does not apply.

Now to the second part, "and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.". Since she resigned her seat in the Senate prior to being sworn in as Secretary of State, this doesn't either.

Just another partisan BS lawsuit! Both parties need to GROW THE FRAK UP! Idiots!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

"or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time"

She raised her own pay before she took the position.


"Since she resigned her seat in the Senate prior to being sworn in as Secretary of State, this doesn't either."


No, see again, "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;"

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Wasnt this issue resolved already?

Secretary of state salary cut for Clinton

Just asking

No, as stated in this post;

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.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by metamagic

 

What i am suggesting is that your arguments rely on subterfuge and misdirections instead of facing the allegations straight on.

Smoke and mirrors.

On the battlefield, smoke is used not only to conceal your movements but also as an irritant.

Such as? Back up your statements with specific examples of where I have used subterfuge and misdirection. And what allegations have I not responded to?

Your responses to my posts are bereft of content and fact, make sweeping and vague claims without any supporting facts or logic and you have dismissed every substantive statement I have made with a glib insult rather than respond to a single point I have made.

I'm still waiting for you to respond with actual substance and not mere name-calling.

reply to post by sp00n1


What is left out is Secretary Clinton took a pay cut to do this job. That makes the portion of the Constitution not valid. She would of had to accept this job with the pay increase to make it a problem.