Appointing Clinton May Be Unconstitutional

[The Sushi Bandit]

Source: Current TV and Raw Story

OMG.. is Obama going to have to find another Sec. of State??

While the appointment of Senator Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State appears to be an all but done deal, there are some legal scholars who believe that the move would be unconstitutional.

"Why? Because the Constitution forbids the appointment of members of Congress to administration jobs if the salary of the job they'd take was raised while they were in Congress," NBC's Pete Williams reports.

Article I, Section 6: "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."


Read more: http://current.com/items/89565078/appointing_clinton_may_be_unconstitutional.htm

---

read more at the link...this is something else!!

[wyldwolf]

1. hardly "latest breaking news."

[The Sushi Bandit]

7. So were is it on DU??

From Raw Story: Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday November 26, 2008

Past presidents have confronted this problem repeatedly -- Taft in nominating Sen. Philander Knox to be secretary of state, Nixon in nominating Sen. William Saxbe to be attorney general, Carter in nominating Sen. Ed Muskie to be secretary of state, and Clinton in nominating Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to be treasury secretary, to name some notable examples.

The usual workaround is for Congress to lower the salary of the job back to what it was so that the nominee can take it without receiving the benefit of the pay increase that was approved while the nominee was in Congress. This maneuver, which has come to be known as "the Saxbe fix," addresses the clear intent of the Constitution, to prevent self-dealing.

But many legal scholars believe it does not cure the Constitutional problem, because the language of Article I is so clearly an absolute prohibition: No senator or representative, period.

"The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose,” said Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a Constitutional law expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. “And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule.”



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Some_legal_scholars_believe_appointing_Clinton_1126.html

[wyldwolf]

13. Since Monday, about 10 threads in GD:P

[deadmessengers]

2. This nonsense again?

This has been posted here a couple of dozen times over the last three days. Google "Saxbe fix" for all the information you might need for why it's a total nonissue.

[eleny]

6. This is the first time I've read about this issue - thanks for the info about the Saxbe fix

All this is new to me, today.

[xxqqqzme]

21. As it is to me as well.

[TheWraith]

10. It MAY be a non-issue.

The fact that it was skirted before doesn't mean that that end-run necessarily complied with the letter of the law. If it doesn't, that would raise problems for a confirmation.

[Bicoastal]

3. Also, Obama can't be President cause he was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, or Mars or something.

:eyes:

[Johonny]

22. This is why

Obama will send a Mars mission to plant and Amerian flag on Mars and claim it as US soil.

[Marrah_G]

4. OFFS......

[cosmik debris]

5. Again?

How many times does this have to be de-bunked?

[The Sushi Bandit]

11. Debunked??? Tell me how its a bad story!

[Zhade]

14. Well, once would be a start.

It hasn't yet. The fact remains that it may be unconstitutional.

I don't care much - if he appoints her, she has to take his orders, not the other way around - but this hasn't been debunked.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Unless they lower the salary, as they have every time since 1909 that a President has

wanted to appoint a member of Congress to a cabinet position that's had its salary increased recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

[Maven]

36. This is Hillary.

Hence, this is unprecedented.

:crazy:

[TheWraith]

39. The fact that it's been skirted doesn't mean it's not necessarily illegal.

There's a significant divided opinion on whether or not the "Saxbe fix" actually comports to the letter of the law.

[Ian David]

8. The solution is to lower everyone's salary back down again. n/t

[LostinVA]

9. Saxe Fix, precedent since 1909 -- blah blah blah -- you've been in GDP, you've seen it

[The Sushi Bandit]

12. What??

I cant understand you

[Occam Bandage]

27. Saxbe fix. They just lower the salary back to where it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. Republicans may use this to keep her from office..

...

[wyldwolf]

17. "progressives" are certainly trying to use it to keep her from office

[jrockford]

40. Keeping her from office would definitely be progressive.

To think she's instep with traditional leftist or progressive values is laughable. Even more laughable is to say that those who are against her are not "progressive"



:nopity:

[wyldwolf]

45. what the hell are "traditional leftist progressive" values?

:rofl:

You guys crack me up.

[cascadiance]

50. For one thing, it isn't progressive to want to remove caps on H-1B Visas...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

[The Sushi Bandit]

41. Then I am trying to keep her from office then!

Im not comfortable whith her selection...

[wyldwolf]

46. based on your most recent posting history, I'm not real concerned about you.

[The Sushi Bandit]

42. Then I am trying to keep her from office then!

Im not comfortable whith her selection...

[Cosmic Charlie]

49. somebody sure needs to.

[wyldwolf]

53. FAIL

[onenote]

43. and you base this on what?

There is ample precedent for making the changes necessary and there is no chance the repubs will go against that precedent. None. Zero. Nada.

Maybe in fantasy internet-land there is, but here in DC there isn't.

[MyNameGoesHere]

44. Yes with their huge majority.. oh wait. I don't understand how that could happen. n/t

[JaneQPublic]

16. Check these links for historical background (why this is a non-issue):

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/25/1688640.aspx


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/22/17102/488/347/664781

[fascisthunter]

18. corrupt

there is no need for this, but hey, why not right?

[fascisthunter]

19. Not Good for Obama nor the Democratic Party

whatever it's worth...

[QC]

20. Thank goodness you brought this to everyone's attention!

It's stunning how DU has remained dead silent on this earth shattering issue!

[backscatter712]

23. Saxbe fix debunkage for the win! n/t

[BeFree]

24. It says "he"

She, is a she. And we don't have the ERA: so she is not covered in the constitution.

Otherwise, it don't matter.

[KamaAina]

25. As I recall, the emoluments were raised not by the Senate but by executive order

possibly for just this reason.

Executive orders aren't covered in the Constitution, which is exactly why the Secretary of Brush Clearing is so fond of them. So this is a murky gray area at most.

[LostinVA]

29. Yup -- Poppy Bush EOed Lloyd Bensten for Bill Clinton

[Cosmic Charlie]

51. the passage on emoluments makes no exemption for executive orders

it applies regardless of who raises the salaries.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Not the emollients clause again!

[QC]

30. Who ever could have imagined that Oil of Olay would be a threat to national security? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

31. No worries, the Saxaphone fix will "smooth" it all over... n/t

[Maven]

35. We need an Act of Clairol to resolve this immediately

[Metric System]

28. Oh look more Clinton drama NOT directly caused by anyone named Clinton.

[Beacool]

33. Yep, I'm out of here.

Too much kookiness for me.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!!!!

:hi:

[Metric System]

34. And Happy Thanksgiving to you!

[QC]

37. Has Obama considered obtaining a Writ of Clinique to resolve this? n/t

[TexasObserver]

38. This is as fresh as that Sarah Palin poll on PBS.

Did you just wake up from a one week nap? There have only been 40 or 50 threads on this same bogus topic.

Here's an idea: When you hear real Constitutional lawyers or law professors saying they're concerned about Hillary's eligibility, THEN worry. As long it is random jack offs, you can safely ignore such absurdities.

Doesn't that make more sense that listening to Joe the Plumber or his ilk offer legal opinions over things they cannot possibly understand?

[Cosmic Charlie]

47. Please God, make it so!

[Raine1967]

48. It is Raw and Current TV...

Hardly questionable sources, no?

I don't care if she is SoS or not. But if THESE are the sources raising questions, I don't think it is wrong to question the whole thing.

I have been observing this whole drama for a while, like I said -- she will be a fine SoS, but if she is not qualified... then that is that.

And seriously, either way, you don't think the repubs are not going to make this an issue?

What is more important, and I ask this KNOWING I will get flamed... HRC being SoS or PE Obama having to fight for her nomination?

Didn't Bill clinton have to go thru all of this shite with Nanny gate?

DO we REALLY have time for this drama, NOW at this point of our nation?

If it is fine, then I say go for it, but I wonder if this is a battle for Obamam to really fight, he has a LOT of other battles to get thru. Is HRC THAT important to our National Security?

[The Sushi Bandit]

52. I dont think he will fight this

If the Republicans protest... you know a sacrificial lamb to build unity with the GOP

[Lord Helmet]

54. according to some here Clintons are above the law

[Cosmic Charlie]

55. so sad, and such a travesty

c'mon Obama,

Garbage in, Garbage out....You know this!
Don't let us down.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Aren't pay raises automatic now?

This would forbid any member of Congress from serving. Silly.