Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama's already shown that he has little to no regard for the Constitution, so I doubt he's all that concerned about this. I also doubt this will stop Clinton from serving as Secretary of State.
Nevertheless it is an interesting issue. In the past, people have gotten around it by lowering the salary. I wonder if they'll do that this time (though as pointed out this isn't really a fix).
Obama's already shown that he has little to no regard for the Constitution, so I doubt he's all that concerned about this. I also doubt this will stop Clinton from serving as Secretary of State.
if the salary for sec of state is lowered then where is the actual "corruption" of Clinton's appointment? And, further, would it matter to an organization like Judicial Watch who claims in their own mission statement to be a conservative group.
what the hell does that even mean? this is easily remedied. They just roll back the pay grade to what it was before Clinton became a senator. Like they did with Nixon's attorney general
This is such a minor nothing issue that I find it ridiculous and laughable that anyone would even make a big deal out of it.
what the hell does that even mean? this is easily remedied. They just roll back the pay grade to what it was before Clinton became a senator. Like they did with Nixon's attorney general
This is such a minor nothing issue that I find it ridiculous and laughable that anyone would even make a big deal out of it.
Well, where the interesting legal question comes in is that the Constitution on its face has an outright prohibition if the salary was increased during the Legislator's term. The question then, even in the event of a rollback of salary, is whether legislative action such as a rollback is sufficient to negate an outright Constitutional prohibition (i.e. the Constitution doesn't say such a person can't serve unless the salary is rolled back; it just says they can't serve).
but wouldn't that increase effectively hobble any potential candidate for an appointed position regardless of all other qualification? And, while I see how the concern for corruption might be in place if candidates stack salaries I still wonder where the actual corruption is if the income is rolled back.
Looks like there is precedence for a roll back solution, eh?
and, again, I'd have to wonder if a conservative organization would care about doing more than throwing caltrops in the path of the opposition administration anyway.
but wouldn't that increase effectively hobble any potential candidate for an appointed position regardless of all other qualification? And, while I see how the concern for corruption might be in place if candidates stack salaries I still wonder where the actual corruption is if the income is rolled back.
Looks like there is precedence for a roll back solution, eh?
and, again, I'd have to wonder if a conservative organization would care about doing more than throwing caltrops in the path of the opposition administration anyway.
I guess the real question is was the Saxbe Fix was legal itself. It seemingly would not be as it doesn't change the fact that the salary did indeed go up while she was in office. And as the article states. I does seem to be a rather exclusionary as it excludes pretty much any congress person from taking the post until they are no longer a congressman.
heh, it says "he" not "she" so there is one way around it. Or Obama could declare her an enemy combatant and then the constitution wouldn't apply to her.See link:
Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State | Judicial Watch
Interesting issue from a legal perspective.
Some people can see the subtle and interesting legal issue involved; others cannot.
oh you mean those with an agenda...you're right...some see it...others don't.
and the argument could be made that Clinton didn't vote to raise the salary but rather it was a cost of living increase as mandated by the law.
oh you mean those with an agenda...you're right...some see it...others don't.
and the argument could be made that Clinton didn't vote to raise the salary but rather it was a cost of living increase as mandated by the law.
I doubt very seriously that the Constitution has an "agenda" against Hillary Clinton.
no....those making the claim that somehow it's unconstitutional for her to take the position do. it's cute how a Republican President was able to get around it but now ya'll want the dem to follow the exact letter of the constitution.
when you consider that the outgoing President had about as much regard for the consitution as a roll of toliet paper I don't think this one article means that much in the big picture.
