• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Constitutionally speakinig, it may not be possible for Mrs. Clinton to be on Obama's staff. . .

I don't think this is an issue as she can simply take no pay to get around the rule. The position for which she is being considered was not open when she voted for the pay raise anyhow.

The OP, Andrew Malcolm, goes on to emphasize that:

"So much for the actual money aspect and strict construction. We're not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn't say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said "Emoluments." It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee's elected term. Period. Which it has."

He somehow missed the part of this strict construction he is bonering up to where is clearly says:

"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"

She is clearly not a "he" so this doesn't apply to her like how the right for women to even vote wouldn't have applied to her when the above words were penned. 😉
 
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
 
Pretty simple solution-she resigns from the Senate upon the Senate's confirmation of her appointment. The constitutional prohibition is against simultaneously holding both offices.

Without doing any research, I'm sure this has been done dozens of times before in our nation's history.

 
Originally posted by: Thump553
Pretty simple solution-she resigns from the Senate upon the Senate's confirmation of her appointment. The constitutional prohibition is against simultaneously holding both offices.

Without doing any research, I'm sure this has been done dozens of times before in our nation's history.
Click to expand...

Read the article.

It seems like people have got around this before, how was the case with Nixon's AG any different?
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
Pretty simple solution-she resigns from the Senate upon the Senate's confirmation of her appointment. The constitutional prohibition is against simultaneously holding both offices.

Without doing any research, I'm sure this has been done dozens of times before in our nation's history.
Click to expand...

Yes, the clause is also designed to prevent people from voting massive increases in salary for their position -- something which I don't think you can level at Senator Clinton. Before August, I don't think she had any designs on any Cabinet-level position.

This situation is a big to-do about basically nothing.

Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Thump553
Pretty simple solution-she resigns from the Senate upon the Senate's confirmation of her appointment. The constitutional prohibition is against simultaneously holding both offices.

Without doing any research, I'm sure this has been done dozens of times before in our nation's history.
Click to expand...

Read the article.

It seems like people have got around this before, how was the case with Nixon's AG any different?
Click to expand...

It isn't. The LA Times is trying to be profound, but they're missing a key point: "the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time." If they roll back the increases, then the Emoluments will not have been increased. It really isn't that complicated.
 
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be an issue. The constitution is very clear on the matter, but once again, as with the previous 8 years, we'll have an administration that thinks the constitution is just a nifty document full of suggestions, only to be followed as long as it doesn't present any thorny issues.
 
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be an issue. The constitution is very clear on the matter, but once again, as with the previous 8 years, we'll have an administration that thinks the constitution is just a nifty document full of suggestions, only to be followed as long as it doesn't present any thorny issues.
Click to expand...

No, it's not clear. You're wrong, stop pretending you're a constitutional scholar so you can fling mud at the "enemy".

There is a solution that has been used by many Presidents and obviously meets the letter and the spirit of the constitution. This is a non-story for everyone except mudraking Republicans.
 
I'm sure they've worked this out, looks like the nomination will be made official soon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12...olitics/01clinton.html

RIP the Clintons as a force in politics
rose.gif
what a waste of a career.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be an issue. The constitution is very clear on the matter, but once again, as with the previous 8 years, we'll have an administration that thinks the constitution is just a nifty document full of suggestions, only to be followed as long as it doesn't present any thorny issues.
Click to expand...

No, it's not clear. You're wrong, stop pretending you're a constitutional scholar so you can fling mud at the "enemy".

There is a solution that has been used by many Presidents and obviously meets the letter and the spirit of the constitution. This is a non-story for everyone except mudraking Republicans.
Click to expand...

Righties can't bear the idea that they've been beaten fair and square, largely because of their own failed ideology, so they need to cling to something, anything, that convinces them that Dems are "Cheaters!", that they didn't trip over their own ideologically incompetent warmongering deregulated free market dicks.

Voter Fraud! Birth certificate! Selective Service! Ayers! Rezko! Sekrit Muslim! Wright! Ineligible! Socialist! Arrgghhhgle!

Uhhh- WAAAAAHHHHhhhh!

Please stay on the line, all of our Wahmbulances are busy at the moment... Your call will be answered as soon as possible...

Or just pray to the newest diety in the repub pantheon, the Mother Mary of all rednecks, the Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be an issue. The constitution is very clear on the matter, but once again, as with the previous 8 years, we'll have an administration that thinks the constitution is just a nifty document full of suggestions, only to be followed as long as it doesn't present any thorny issues.
Click to expand...

No, it's not clear. You're wrong, stop pretending you're a constitutional scholar so you can fling mud at the "enemy".

There is a solution that has been used by many Presidents and obviously meets the letter and the spirit of the constitution. This is a non-story for everyone except mudraking Republicans.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm not a constitutional scholar, and neither are you. Incidentally, stop jumping to conclusions -- I'm not a republican either. It obviously IS an issue, that's why in the past they've had to come up with some tricks to get around the problem, including even passing laws to remove a salary increase. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have done that.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be an issue. The constitution is very clear on the matter, but once again, as with the previous 8 years, we'll have an administration that thinks the constitution is just a nifty document full of suggestions, only to be followed as long as it doesn't present any thorny issues.
Click to expand...

No, it's not clear. You're wrong, stop pretending you're a constitutional scholar so you can fling mud at the "enemy".

There is a solution that has been used by many Presidents and obviously meets the letter and the spirit of the constitution. This is a non-story for everyone except mudraking Republicans.
Click to expand...

Righties can't bear the idea that they've been beaten fair and square, largely because of their own failed ideology, so they need to cling to something, anything, that convinces them that Dems are "Cheaters!", that they didn't trip over their own ideologically incompetent warmongering deregulated free market dicks.

Voter Fraud! Birth certificate! Selective Service! Ayers! Rezko! Sekrit Muslim! Wright! Ineligible! Socialist! Arrgghhhgle!

Uhhh- WAAAAAHHHHhhhh!

Please stay on the line, all of our Wahmbulances are busy at the moment... Your call will be answered as soon as possible...

Or just pray to the newest diety in the repub pantheon, the Mother Mary of all rednecks, the Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!
Click to expand...

My God you blind partisan hacks are amazing. This is not a right-left issue. I don't care which side does it, I don't like the "the end justifies the means" mentality. The laws and constitution are there to be followed by all, not just by those who have no power.

I don't think this will be something that stops Hillary from taking the position, but they should do it in accordance with the law.
 
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wow, thats just grasping for straws... where did Hillary vote to increase the pay of the SoS in her 1 term as senator? Besides, with the upcoming dem congress do you really think that this will be an issue? C'mon...
Click to expand...

Actually, it should be an issue. The constitution is very clear on the matter, but once again, as with the previous 8 years, we'll have an administration that thinks the constitution is just a nifty document full of suggestions, only to be followed as long as it doesn't present any thorny issues.
Click to expand...

This issue has come up before and been resolved by reducing the salary to the previous amount. It's a non-issue because the Constitution was trying to prevent people from increasing their current salaries or the salary for a position they would soon be taking. Like I said above, I don't think anyone in America would believe that Clinton had her sights on a cabinet-level position until August of this year.
 
Originally posted by: Double Trouble


I don't think this will be something that stops Hillary from taking the position, but they should do it in accordance with the law.
Click to expand...

In an amazing act of journalistic integrity, the article written in the LA Times simply assumes Obama and Clinton will ignore the Constitution. They'll have every chance to adjust her salary to be line with the requirements in January, which is how it has been handled in the past.
 
The edict seems to be against double-dipping or voting yourself a massive salary for the new position. As long as they roll back any salary increase in the SoS position and Clinton resigns from the Senate I don't see any constitutional or ethical issues with her accepting the position. Her appointment will follow both the letter and spirit of the edict.
 
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: Double Trouble


I don't think this will be something that stops Hillary from taking the position, but they should do it in accordance with the law.
Click to expand...

In an amazing act of journalistic integrity, the BLOG written in the LA Times simply assumes Obama and Clinton will ignore the Constitution. They'll have every chance to adjust her salary to be line with the requirements in January, which is how it has been handled in the past.
Click to expand...


Corrected.

Honestly, whenever an OP post a blog as "news" it really gets me steamed. :frown:
 
Again folks, the constitution has been rendered useless and void, ever since bush brought about the patriot act and got rid of habeaus corpus. your nation has been hijacked and the only way you are going to get "change" is a revolution.
 
Originally posted by: techs
Anyone else notice that its a blog?
Is that where people get their news from? Opinion pieces?
Click to expand...

the guy was a pulitzer finalist in 2004. that makes him better than 99.99% of the AP writers out there. not to mention 40 years of covering politics as a journalist.
 
Originally posted by: K3N
Again folks, the constitution has been rendered useless and void, ever since bush brought about the patriot act and got rid of habeaus corpus. your nation has been hijacked and the only way you are going to get "change" is a revolution.
Click to expand...

Read the thread smart guy.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: techs
Anyone else notice that its a blog?
Is that where people get their news from? Opinion pieces?
Click to expand...

the guy was a pulitzer finalist in 2004. that makes him better than 99.99% of the AP writers out there. not to mention 40 years of covering politics as a journalist.
Click to expand...

It doesn't obscure the fact that he's trying to make a big out of nothing. He mentions how other nominees have avoided the exact same problem, but somehow assumes that Obama won't follow that path. Pulitzer finalist or not, that article or blog post is not a quality piece of journalism.
 
Whats the big deal . Hillary is OK choice for a Dem . I watched the Obamas speach today . Hillary spoke also.

What I found most amusing is this. Both are wearing tinfoiled hats. As both mentioned the GloBAL warming . Something that needs to be adderessed .

Now we have had many threads on Global warming . Any who seen it as a problem were labeled . Tinfoil hat users. Ironic isn't it. The same people who labeled others are the same ones backing . The Tinfoiled Hat Administration This is better than SciFi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top