Two posters over at TNR's The Plank give their take on the Emolument Clause

[wyldwolf]

The U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2), which 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 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."

Since so much of this is vague and open to interpretation:

"Here's my take on it. The President acted illegally when he increased (by appropriating funds without going to Congress) the Secretary of State's salary by Executive Order. I wasn't aware and I think it should not be the case that the President have authority to appropriate monies through Executive Order. Therefore, since the order was illegal and has no standing in the law or statute, the Secretary of State's salary has not been increased and Senator Clinton is eligible to serve."

But here's the best one - since, I remind you again, this is vague and open to interpretation:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected..."

How does this apply to Hillary, as she is a woman?

:rofl:

This is going to get good is anyone pursues this "Emolument Clause" course.

[fasttense]

1. It seems to me any evil President worth his salt

would have increased everyone's salary a year before the presidential election, then no one currently in either House could have been appointed to, a cabinet position, a supreme court justice job or any other civil office under the authority of the United States.

Why didn't the bush think of this? He must have been on vacation.

I wonder if that's why the dancing supremes petitioned for a pay increase? They hoped to keep out every current member of Congress.