Lawsuit argues Clinton ineligible for State post

Lawsuit argues Clinton ineligible for State post

www.msnbc.msn.com

updated 1:50 p.m. CT, Fri., Jan. 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - A conservative watchdog group filed a lawsuit Thursday arguing that Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot legally serve as secretary of state, even though she was sworn in last week.

The suit is based on an obscure section of the Constitution on compensation for public officials, the emoluments clause. The clause says no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term.

Clinton was serving in Congress when the secretary of state's salary was raised to its current level of $191,300. So that Clinton could take the post, Congress last month lowered the salary to $186,600, the level when she began her second Senate term. A similar tactic has been used so that several other members of Congress from both parties could serve in the Cabinet.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Submit Political News

So let me get this right...in order to get her on board they used an act of Congress to lower the pay of the Sec. State??

What kinda of bull is that?? If she or anyone else is ineligible...that should be the end of it.

But apparently no does not mean no when dealing with a government that does what it wants, when it wants to...screw the rules.

Items like this makes you wonder why most of us have little to no faith in the system.

I predict that this lawsuit will go nowhere and we'll hear Hillary scream about a right wing conspiracy yet again.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31-1-2009 by wolf241e]

Are you aware that Congress appoints itself annual pay raises no matter if they vote on the bill or not?

And this is a surprise? It shouldnt be. As the article points out, its not the first time its been done.

And if we look into history, we will find plenty of Republican Congressional members who went through the same "favor" to get the better position in the administration.

Just business as usual for Washington.

Nothing changes.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Hey there RFB...good morning.

Yeah, I am aware of the self appointed raises that they give themselves. Didn't the last one come at a bad time and made huge headlines??

Anyway I've always found it a bit hard to swallow that the people who claim that they are just"public servants" or that they "just want to serve even though there is no money in it", make more money that most Americans.

If this doesn't wake the people up who believe the illusion that we are really in charge, I don't know what will.

reply to post by wolf241e


Good Morning!

There is definately a good reason for people to stand up and shout foul on this, as with alot of things. Even tho it is wrong, I am not sure that it would impact the public that much considering the hardships so many are going through.

I think that maybe if the economic situation improves, perhaps we might see an investigation sometime down the road that will have Clinton standing in front of an inquery board along with a few others.

By that time however, it might not matter depending on how things go for people. Right now the majority want the economy fixed and the issues in the middle east settled and our involvement there ended.

I fully agree that this is a fine example of how much abuse takes place up there in Washington. I would have thought that after the bailouts and nothing is really improving after the fact, that right now there would be regular inquery hearings aired on C-Span 24/7.

Guess were gonna have to wait and see how this one turns out.



Cheers!!!!

Look, I am a die hard liberal. Even if this lawsuit revolved around a Republican congressman, I would really have little issue with it. The constitutional clause mentioned was meant to prevent conflicts of interest. Basically, they did not want someone raising the pay for a position they knew they would occupy in the future. Given that congress lowered the pay for the position of Sec. of State, it should be evident that Mrs. Clinton did not take this position to reap the financial whirlwind of benefits that the previous pay increase would allow her, thus eliminating the conflict of interest.

Personally, the fact that this action has been used in the past by Republican administrations, I find it only strengthens the Clinton's claims about a "Right Wing Conspiracy" against them. I mean, lets be real here, I seriously doubt there is anyone that the right hates more than the Clintons.

On a side note, even though a salary of $186K is much greater than that of the average American, it is well below the average salary of a person with Clinton's education and experience. Were she to have left office to take a job in the private sector, I am sure that Hilary Clinton could easily earn more than a million a year.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
On a side note, even though a salary of $186K is much greater than that of the average American, it is well below the average salary of a person with Clinton's education and experience. Were she to have left office to take a job in the private sector, I am sure that Hilary Clinton could easily earn more than a million a year.

Its not well below the average salary with a person of her education and experience. Its about $70k too much. She was nothing but a first lady, and a lousy senator.

The bi-party conflicts need to stop though, liberal or not. Its going to ruin this country.

But we all know, this position for her isn't about the money. Its about the power.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Look, I am a die hard liberal. Even if this lawsuit revolved around a Republican congressman, I would really have little issue with it. The constitutional clause mentioned was meant to prevent conflicts of interest. Basically, they did not want someone raising the pay for a position they knew they would occupy in the future. Given that congress lowered the pay for the position of Sec. of State, it should be evident that Mrs. Clinton did not take this position to reap the financial whirlwind of benefits that the previous pay increase would allow her, thus eliminating the conflict of interest.

Good morning Bluegrass,

I understand what your point of view. Mine is really no different. NO ONE should have the rules bent for them, especially those who work for the government. This has nothing to do about the lousy 5 grand it was lowered.
A rule was/is in place to prevent things like this and it was cleverly pushed aside with a seldom used "clause" to fit, in this case, her agenda. This is about living within a set standard.

The group says that Hillary Clinton is "constitutionally ineligible" to be secretary of state until 2013, when her second Senate term would expire. She resigned from the Senate to take the Cabinet post.

I agree with you that $$$ has nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton wish to be Sec. State. It's all about the power that comes with the position.



[edit on 31-1-2009 by wolf241e]

Originally posted by xstealth


But we all know, this position for her isn't about the money. Its about the power.

Hey there X,

I a reply that I just posted I unknowingly echoed you thoughts about the power issue.

Sorry to you for that.

SeeYa!

Originally posted by xstealth
Its not well below the average salary with a person of her education and experience. Its about $70k too much. She was nothing but a first lady, and a lousy senator.

I'd say this IS probably below what she would be making, with her education, in the private sector.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

She embarked on a career in law after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973. Following a stint as a Congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas in 1974 and married Bill Clinton in 1975. She was later named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979, and was twice listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America.
******SKIP******
From the East Coast to Arkansas

During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[50] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[51] During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[52] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[36] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[52] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.[52]

By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future;
******SKIP******
She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington where career prospects were brighter. Clinton was at the time teaching law and running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in his home state. In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,[58][59] where Bill Clinton also was. She gave classes in criminal law, where she was considered a rigorous teacher and tough grader, and was the first director of the school's legal aid clinic.

Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career

Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards
******SKIP******
She also served on corporate boards, including that of retail giant Wal-Mart from 1986-1992, frozen yogurt purveyor TCBY from 1985-1992 and cement manufacturer LaFarge from 1990-1992. She earned tens of thousands of dollars in fees from each.

Clinton's firm represented Wal-Mart and TCBY while she sat on their boards, a cozy practice that corporate governance experts frown upon because of the potential for conflicts of interest.

I'm in no way a HUGE fan of hers, but I'm sure she would be making a heck of a lot more money in the private sector!

But I must say, I totally agree with your statement here!

Originally posted by xstealth
But we all know, this position for her isn't about the money. Its about the power.

As far as this lawsuit is concerned, I think it's just ridiculous and nothing will ever happen with it and it will just fade away.

Just somebody trying to get their 15 minutes of fame.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by xstealth
Its not well below the average salary with a person of her education and experience. Its about $70k too much. She was nothing but a first lady, and a lousy senator.

The bi-party conflicts need to stop though, liberal or not. Its going to ruin this country.

But we all know, this position for her isn't about the money. Its about the power.

Well, I disagree that her experience and education are lacking. I think you are forgetting that she graduated in the top two in her law school class at Yale and that she was a very high profile lawyer before becoming first lady of Arkansas. Her educational achievements should would demand at least $500K/yr in the private sector. Really, I would say that your average Yale law school grad in the top two in the class probably makes upwards of a million dollars a year.

I do however agree with you that for Hilary, the position of Sec. of State is really about the power she wields from that position. I also agree that the party conflicts and infighting are a huge problem in this country. We could accomplish a lot more if we could, to quote Rodney King, "all just get along."