Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
No Shit.
This should be fun to watch.
judicialwatch.org
Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5188
Washington, DC -- December 2, 2008
Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton Appointment
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "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 encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.
Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
This should be fun to watch.
judicialwatch.org
Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5188
Washington, DC -- December 2, 2008
Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton Appointment
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "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 encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.
Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Judicial Watch has always hated the Clintons, by the way.
I think sums up the whole purpose of Judicial Watch putting this out there...
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Is Clinton ineligible to be secretary of state?
1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democrats in Congress were Wednesday preparing to fix a constitutional quirk that a conservative legal group argues should bar Hillary Clinton from serving as secretary of state.
Theoretically, the constitutional language at issue apparently disqualifies the former first lady because the Senate voted to increase the secretary of state's salary while she was serving in the chamber.
Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is warning of a constitutional showdown over the New York senator's appointment unless president-elect Obama nixes his choice to head the State Department.
Leading Democrats say there is plenty of precedent for fixing the situation, and dismiss fears the nomination could be at risk.
One solution would be for the Senate to simply vote to return the salary of the top US diplomat to its level before the previous Senate vote.
That solution has worked before -- notably when senator Philander Knox was nominated as secretary of state by president William Taft in 1909 and most recently when president Bill Clinton made senator Lloyd Bentsen Treasury secretary.
The tactic became known as the "Saxbe" fix after president Richard Nixon used it to ease the nomination of senator William Saxbe as attorney general.
"There is precedent for how to address this issue and Congress will act if necessary," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"Speaker Pelosi looks forward to working with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State."
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Democratic Majority leader Harry Reid, said the Senate was also ready to act if necessary.
"It is not the first time Congress has had to address the issue of one of its senators moving to a cabinet position," Manley said.
"Based on the ample precedent that has been set, Senator Reid believes a resolution can be reached."
The problematic language is contained in Article I, section six, of the US constitution: "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."
Judicial Watch, which mounted a string of investigations into the Clintons during the 1990s, said the provision was included by US founding fathers to prevent corruption.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation."
But Clinton's Senate spokesman Philippe Reines said the existence of the clause was no surprise.
"Putting frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we're confident it will be here too."
Sorry.
Judicial Watch happens to be correct.
Legislative monkey works to lower the wage rate do NOT override the constiutional provision.
If you believe in your constitution you had best put your partisan hat away.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to despise the clintons, by the way ... from Iran-Contra to Vince Foster ...
You don't have to be some rabid republican to squirm at the appointment.
I love how AFP has to conclude with the overly derisive "frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups" comment. The Constitution is NOT "frivolous" and it's supporters are PATRIOTS, not "fringe groups".
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The Constitution is not the bible... We are a country run by its people. If we see an obvious flaw in the document, it is our obligation to correct it.
duh!!!!!!
Then why don't you write your congressman and suggest a constitutional ammendment.
It could be Obama's first "great" act as president.
He could urge for the amendment of the constitution to put hillary in SOS.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
is there anywhere else to see that iran/contra video or could you sum it up for me? I can't play videos at google
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
A guy named larry nichols, former CIA Black Ops merc who left the field after seeing a child mowed in half by a chain gun made him flip out, was a close friend of the Clintons, and got appointed to a desk job as Director of Marketing for the Arkansas Development Finance Authority after meeting with Bill personally.
During his tenure at ADFA he witnessed the illicit banking operations of the ADFA as related to Iran-Contra. Namely, the cocaine that was being used to by illegal guns to sell to Iran in order to fund contra operations south of the border, was coming in to Mena Airport in Arkansa.
Not only was Bill Clinton aware of this, he was signing the checks that laundered this cocaine money through ADFA to another bank in Florida long associated with CIA funneling. The whole thing is incredibly well documented.
Along with the complicity of Clinton in these very illegal and dirty activities, the video also chronicles several clearly related murders of people in the town, incuding two young boys who got too close to Mena Airport and were murdered and left on train tracks, one with a knife wound in his back.
You can pull the video out of this torrent (assuming it was packed correctly)
it is listed as:
/Mena Connection Compromised Clinton, Bush and the CIA, Drug smuggling ( 57 min.).avi 433 MiB
just unclick all the other items if you don't want them, and you should have the torrented file in less than an hour (assuming DSL or higher).
If I opened it now would you not understand?
He successfully wrangled his way out of it though.....don't they all it seems.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well of course.
I think TPTB view that as a testimony to a mans "commitment" to the cause.
It only stands to reason that a man would be rewarded for that action (Bill Clinton, cough cough), and not penalized.
Proving your willingness to subvert the constitution, the congress, and the will of the people is viewed as an outstanding character trait in high circles.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Appointed by Bush...smiled at and given a greazy handjob by Bammers Malone.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/9/defense_secretary_nominee_robert_gates_tied
This guy sounds awesome.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
just a cell phone for now :( I don't know if I can play .avi files or not, I know I can play .wmv's
have you seen 'Coverup: Behind the Iran/Contra Affair'?
There's also a VERY detailed book, it was either written by Wasington Post writers or NY Times writers on it.
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
The article isn't saying that the constitution is frivolous, it's saying that the lawsuit is. It's not saying that supporters of the constitution are a fringe group, it's saying that Judicial Watch is a fringe group. You can't convince me by simply conflating an interest group's agenda with "protecting the constitution".
If Judicial Watch's concern is with possible corruption, I don't see them having a strong case here. How exactly would Hillary be corrupted by the increase in SoS salary that was approved between 2006 and the present? I'm pretty sure it'd be insignificant in comparison to the net worth of herself and Bill.
Would Judicial Watch be raising a stink about this if the nominee were anyone but Hillary Clinton? Did Judicial Watch mount numerous investigations into the Bush administration over the past 8 years?
I don't understand this need to split hairs over the motives of Judicial Watch (or the alleged integrity of Hillary, for that matter).
They didn't write the constitution.
In fact, they aren't even interpreting it,
they are just regurgitating it verbatim, and saying, "yo! here is what the supreme law of the land says!"
Tell me flat out,
do you believe that the constitution, as written, prevents Hillary from being SoS?
Do you acknowledge that a congressional measure can NOT subvert that clause?
What do YOU think should be done?
If you are content with "The Saxbe Fix" for this case, would you be content with other such congressional measures to over ride OTHER sections of the constitution?
???
ps - and the article is CLEARLY attempting to slander the suit as "frivolous" even though it stands on VERY firm constitutional ground. That is ridiculous on the face!
pps - also remember that Judicial Watch had a hand in helping sue Bush, Dick & Co for Cheney's ultra-secretive "Energy Task Force", trying to get those documents released. Thus, you can't exactly say they are a "partisan" group, if you were trying to slander their credibility.
I find the ability of partisan political afficianados to brush off firm constitutional provisions as "frivolous" to be extremely disturbing. Surely Hillary Clinton is not the ONLY person qualified for the position. Simply find someone else to do the fucking job. It's not that goddamn hard.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not denying the fact that the constitutional question exists, but there's obviously a precedent to work around it in the Saxbe fix. Whether or not it's in violation of the constitution is a matter of opinion. My point is that Judicial Watch has been dogging the Clintons since 1994, and they got millions of dollars in funding from Richard Mellon Scaife. They seem to have an agenda beyond a simple patriotic desire to protect the constitution.
What do you find so biased about the AFP article? You seem to be really freaking out over the word "frivolous", but it only appears once in the article, and it's in a quote from a Clinton spokesperson, not the author of the piece.
Why should Obama have to pick someone else? It's his perogative to nominate whomever he sees fit, and the senate's role is to advise and consent. Your last three sentences there make it seem like you're more anti-Hillary than pro-constitution. Would this appointment be such a big deal to you and Judicial Watch if Obama had nominated Richard Lugar instead of Hillary?
Frankly i couldnt give a fuck WHO he picks.
It is bound to be someone i wont like.
That is what the establishment does, pick from amongst their own to further their own causes.
This is about the constitution, plain and simple.
Any "matter of opinion" regarding the constitutionality of the "Saxbe fix" is just that. The constitution isn't vague in it's wording.
Hillary is NOT constitutionaly eligible for the position.
I know it must REALLY pain all the Obama supporters ... you know, after he went on the campaign trail questioning her foreign policy experience so much ... i know it must be hard to let go of the best qualified candidate he could find for the position.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No better way to punctuate your point than to put a "rolleyes" at the end of your post.
EVERYTHING regarding interpretations of the constitution's wording and intent is a "matter of opinion". That's the point. Presenting one's opinion as fact in the form of a fake news article is disingenuous at best and not terribly effective.
If Obama had appointed Dick Lugar to be SoS, would you be so bent out shape? It would be essentially the same situation since Lugar was also reelected in 2006. I know you said that you don't give a fuck who he appoints, but the fact that you started this thread and are still posting responses on it indicates otherwise.
If the constitution says no, so do i.
I'm not sure what the fuck you think you're getting at.
I may not have a "D" by my name, but i sure as fuck don't have an "R" by it either.
I am .. I am ... I am...
and FYI, the rolleyes was indicative of how fickle partisans can be.
Obama trash talked the fuck out of Hillary's foreign policy experience on the campaign trail,
and now all of a sudden they rally behind her for Secretary of State ... a position steeped in foreign policy.
It is sheer lunacy.
so once again.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I laugh at your pathetic reaches! GET OVER IT!!!!!!
Maybe you WILL have the last laugh....but I highly doubt it.
When the constitution goes, we are all losers, bub.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
this section was for DEBATE or so I thought. I'm sorry you dislike criticism against the golden one but you will just have to get over it and quit w/ the sore loser remarks. Otherwise you're not a very good citizen, Rick
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
some people are too wrapped up in it being their turn to play 'king of the hill' and gloating in their power, they have no intention of letting anyone interfere with that. that's why they just call people names instead of addressing points given.
Until the Republicans win, then they'll be back to criticizing the corrupt, crooks appointed to the cabinet and crying about the dismissive attitudes of the republicans....They bitch about the cycle when it's them at the bottom and yet when they have the chance to break it they jus give in and keep it going because their power and ego trips are too tempting, I guess. The only way to break a cycle is to stop being a part of it
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
When it comes to politics....your mind is a weapon against yourself.
seek guidance.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I have a lot of faith in the heart, and purity of thought that some of the more "important" founders put in to their work.
You can cast accusations down from another age, back at those men.
However, you would miss the point.
The Declaration and The Constitution were compromises.
To illustrate how one sided your "to protect wealthy landowners and slave owners" comment is, one need only consider Jefferson's original Declaration:
Jefferson was attempting to speak out against slavery in the very foundation of our country, for heavens sake! Earlier in his life he even tried to get bill through the Virginia colonial legislature against it. Franklin, who had once even traded slaves earlier in his life, was staunchly against it by the time of the Revolution:
-source
John Adams and his wife Abigail were utterly and unequivocaly opposed to slavery, found it abhorrent and repugnant, and thought the concept fundamentaly incongruous with the ideals of "liberty". John actually argued against using slaves to count in the apportioning of taxes, based on the fact that it would constitute "taxation without representation"! His cousin and equal founding father, Samuel Adams introduced the bill making slavery illegal in Massachusetts. John's son, John Q. Adams (6th US President), was quite active in opposing slavery.
Several of the other founding fathers were similarly minded.
But the focus here is not and should not be on the opinons of our founders with respects to the reprehensible institution of slavery, it should be on the legacy they left us. And if one is curious enough to examine the records, they should find plenty of proof that most of our great forefather had a genuine compassion for their fellow man, and truly sought to better the lot of all mankind through their actions.
While our founders all had their flaws (Hamilton and Franklin adulterers,J. Adams' subversion of liberty with the signing of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Jefferson dying a slaveholder, etc.),theytruly were forward-thinking and visionary men. You do your country a great disservice by degrading their name in such fashion as to insinuate that the entirety of their effort was intended solely to the preserverance of their privelage.
You, sir, owe the whole of your liberty to them -- whatever left of it you see fit to willingly claim, anyhow. Legitimate arguments for sure can be had over the deeds of our forefathers, but attempts to make them irrelavent by a general villainization of their character are absurd.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I agree with this, Drifting. It is true that the Constitution is/was a compromise. The founders hardly agreed on any one thing. Of course, this is why I think looking to the founders for 'original intent' has its shortcomings. It certainly would have varied among them. This is why I think best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, to look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Interpretive philosophies of the possible justices are certainly up for debate.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Jefferson also called John Quincy Adams defense of Jackson's genocide in Florida as being, "among the ablest I have ever seen, both as to logic and style." Adams was defending Jackson's brutality and slaughter of the native population of Florida, and Jefferson was so impressed he urged wide distribution of the report, "to maintain in Europe a correct opinion of our political morality"
Jefferson and Madison both believed that power should be in the hands of the "natural aristocracy" "men like themselves", who defend property rights. -from Edmund Morgan.
The reigning doctrine was "the people who own the country ought to govern it." (John Jay)
John Q Adam's racist paper to Spain, supporting Jackson's massacre in Florida, "has long been recognized as one of the most important state papers in the history of American foreign relations." according to William Weeks.
He blamed everything on the British, to the point where he thought the indians, "negroes" and all the pirates were united against the US, as a result of British tampering. That was his excuse for the slaughter of the native American population. He was so taken by this idea he said, "from the period of our established independence to this day, all the Indian wars with which we have been afflicted have been distinctly traceable to the instigation of the English traders or agents."
Both Jefferson and Adams had no problem supporting the idea that "the people who own the country ought to govern it" and with genocide. They framed our constitution, but again, the idea that the people who own the country ought to govern it seems to be supporting the idea that those in power should maintain that power, which goes against the very core idea of democracy.
I could make lists like this for almost any founding father.
I am not trying to villianize them, simply pointing out that they were human beings, and as flawed as any. they had some great ideas regarding liberty, and it is sickening to see those liberties being taken away by current administrations, but it does them a great disservice to take without question any ideas they may have had. They were very progressive for their time because they questioned the status quo. For us to accept without question everything they stood for goes against the very concept of liberty.