Constitutionality of Clinton as Secretary of State...

[jillian]

Aye, but there's the rub....

that whole partisan hack thing.

 

[Steerpike]

But it really does say he and not she. So if we are going to interpret the constitution strictly, then there really is no problem with Hillary, right? The intent was to avoid corruption and having someone elected take a job that might pay more money for strictly personal gain. I don't know what salaries were back then, but certainly even POTUS at $400,000 is chump change and POTUS is the highest paid official...elected or appointed.

Do we go by intent or a strict interpretation? Either way, Hillary should have no difficulty and Congress should address this silly issue to avoid future problems.

Unless you are some kind of partisan hack, I can't see how exactly you'd disagree.

A strict interpretation of law would still recognize 'he' as a pronoun pertaining to both genders.

 

[Amanda]

Hillary, well both Clintons really, give me the creeps but I don't think this will or should stop her. It looks like a real stretch.

 

[del]

Aye, but there's the rub....

that whole partisan hack thing.

i want to see her birth certificate.

 

[jillian]

i want to see her birth certificate.

 

[Silence]

i want to see her birth certificate.

original no less

 

[Gunny]

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.

Yeah. In this case, the ones that DON'T see it are the ones with the agenda.

Can't ANYTHING be discussed on merit without political hacks chiming in?

 

[Gunny]

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.

The Constitution is what's making the claim, not "those."

 

[Gunny]

Aye, but there's the rub....

that whole partisan hack thing.

You're correct. Y'all should stay out of threads above your ability to see anything beyond left and right.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah. In this case, the ones that DON'T see it are the ones with the agenda.

Can't ANYTHING be discussed on merit without political hacks chiming in?

No, but at least you can look at the thread and see who is discussing the merits and who is unable to. That is informative in and of itself.

 

[Gunny]

No, but at least you can look at the thread and see who is discussing the merits and who is unable to. That is informative in and of itself.

True that.

I guess they were so busy thinking what they wanted to say next they missed the part where you voted for Obama.

 

[Steerpike]

True that.

I guess they were so busy thinking what they wanted to say next they missed the part where you voted for Obama.

Yes, and furthermore don't have a problem with Clinton in the job. I think she'd be good at it.

But it is easier to name-call than to carry on a substantive discussion.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, and furthermore don't have a problem with Clinton in the job. I think she'd be good at it.

But it is easier to name-call than to carry on a substantive discussion.

Hey, try to get into some of the arguments on secession. There're always the "just try it and see what happens" crowd. Academic discussion obviously is above beyond their ability.

I really don't see what the big deal is here. It's not like our government is a stickler for the law. Especially with something as insignificant as this. If there's a way around it, they'll take it. I doubt this is any real threat to Clinton, and I really don't have any heartburn with her in the position.

It just remains to be seen how they'll go about circumventing the details.

The funniest part of this to me is, those same people would be screeching like banshees if a Republican as doing it.

 

[pegwinn]

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. 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.

Doesn't she have to resign her senate seat? If yes, then wait 24 hours. Re-nominate her as a civilian.

I don't like her, him, or them..... but I don't see an obstacle.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

Anyone here think its a good idea to just allow elected officials to use their own personal judgment about when they will and will not abide by the Constitution?

The issue will undoubtedly be raised -just like it was for Nixon. In effect, it already has been raised. The Solicitor General serves as the President's lawyer and constitutional expert -and that guy's office is full of a bunch of constitutional experts whose jobs are to research the constitutionality of any orders, choice of appointee or plans of actions etc. a President desires to carry out to insure they are done in a constitutional manner and do not in some way violate the Constitution.

It isn't as if these kinds of Constitutional prohibitions are something that elected officials get to just pick and choose when to abide by them or not -since they are intended to reduce the likelihood of corruption IN our elected officials in the first place. Elected officials have no choice about whether to abide by it or not -they MUST. Its like pretending the Constitutional restrictions regarding what circumstances prohibit someone from running for President are just suggestions and not legally binding.

But I have no doubt the Democrat Congress will gladly lower the salary of the position so she can take it and pass that through with much less arm twisting than Nixon had to do. I think Judicial Watch is wrong when claiming that even if the salary is reduced, she still can't take it.

The intent of the prohibition was to prevent her from personally profiting by first holding the position that helped pass the salary increase for that job -and then taking that job and thereby benefitting from her own vote to increase the salary. If the salary is reduced by Congress beforehand - she doesn't profit from her previous vote because the previous vote has been nullified -as if it never happened. End of problem. The ban was never intended to be used a political tool so that political opponents could permanently deny a President his choice of appointment even with good faith efforts to remove the taint of corruption after Congress essentially nullified their original vote.

Not that I think this woman is the right choice for the job by any means. Secretaries of State almost always end up being a real thorn in the sides of Presidents because they so often end up believing THEY are much the better person to set foreign policy over the President they serve. Which is why Secretaries of State rarely hold their job as long as the President who appointed them.

How long before Hillary believes she (along with the advice of 2 term former President Bill in her ear) should be deciding and setting foreign policy instead of a freshman Senator with zero experience of any kind? We all know she already believes that. I think Obama may have created a trap for himself. He will undoubtedly end up asking for her resignation sometime in the future. Most Presidents end up asking for the resignation of their first Secretary of State. But if he thought the Clintons were dangerous to have as political enemies before.......

 

[Steerpike]

Hey, try to get into some of the arguments on secession. There're always the "just try it and see what happens" crowd. Academic discussion obviously is above beyond their ability.

I really don't see what the big deal is here. It's not like our government is a stickler for the law. Especially with something as insignificant as this. If there's a way around it, they'll take it. I doubt this is any real threat to Clinton, and I really don't have any heartburn with her in the position.

It just remains to be seen how they'll go about circumventing the details.

The funniest part of this to me is, those same people would be screeching like banshees if a Republican as doing it.

I imagine they'll get around it like Nixon did with Saxbe. Interesting questions as to whether the legislature ought to be able to do so.

 

[Steerpike]

B
The intent of the prohibition was to prevent her from personally profiting by first holding the position that helped pass the salary increase for that job -and then taking that job and thereby benefitting from her own vote to increase the salary. If the salary is reduced by Congress beforehand - she doesn't profit from her previous vote because the previous vote has been nullified -as if it never happened. End of problem. .

Though if that were the true intent at the time of the writing, it would have been easy to state it plainly and put that caveat into the language. Simply require that the official not accept the benefit of the increased salary, etc. But it was not written that way.

 

[Gunny]

Anyone here think its a good idea to just allow elected officials to use their own personal judgment about when they will and will not abide by the Constitution?

The issue will undoubtedly be raised -just like it was for Nixon. In effect, it already has been raised. The Solicitor General serves as the President's lawyer and constitutional expert -and that guy's office is full of a bunch of constitutional experts whose jobs are to research the constitutionality of any orders, choice of appointee or plans of actions etc. a President desires to carry out to insure they are done in a constitutional manner and do not in some way violate the Constitution.

It isn't as if these kinds of Constitutional prohibitions are something that elected officials get to just pick and choose when to abide by them or not -since they are intended to reduce the likelihood of corruption IN our elected officials in the first place. Elected officials have no choice about whether to abide by it or not -they MUST. Its like pretending the Constitutional restrictions regarding what circumstances prohibit someone from running or President are just suggestions and not legally binding.

But I have no doubt the Democrat Congress will gladly lower the salary of the position so she can take it and pass that through with much less arm twisting than Nixon had to do. I think Judicial Watch is wrong when claiming that even if the salary is reduced, she still can't take it.

The intent of the prohibition was to prevent her from personally profiting by first holding the position that helped pass the salary increase for that job -and then taking that job and thereby benefitting from her own vote to increase the salary. If the salary is reduced by Congress beforehand - she doesn't profit from her previous vote because the previous vote has been nullified -as if it never happened. End of problem. The ban was never intended to be used a political tool so that political opponents could permanently deny a President his choice of appointment even with good faith efforts to remove the taint of corruption after Congress essentially nullified their original vote.

Not that I think this woman is the right choice for the job by any means. Secretaries of State almost always end up being a real thorn in the sides of Presidents because they so often end up believing THEY are much the better person to set foreign policy over the President they serve. Which is why Secretaries of State rarely hold their job as long as the President who appointed them.

How long before Hillary believes she (along with the advice of 2 term former President Bill in her ear) should be deciding and setting foreign policy instead of a freshman Senator with zero experience of any kind? We all know she already believes that. I think Obama may have created a trap for himself. He will undoubtedly end up asking for her resignation sometime in the future. Most Presidents end up asking for the resignation of their first Secretary of State. But if he thought the Clintons were dangerous to have as political enemies before.......

Different topic, but I agree. A marriage made in Hell.

 

[Luissa]

Hey, try to get into some of the arguments on secession. There're always the "just try it and see what happens" crowd. Academic discussion obviously is above beyond their ability.

I really don't see what the big deal is here. It's not like our government is a stickler for the law. Especially with something as insignificant as this. If there's a way around it, they'll take it. I doubt this is any real threat to Clinton, and I really don't have any heartburn with her in the position.

It just remains to be seen how they'll go about circumventing the details.

The funniest part of this to me is, those same people would be screeching like banshees if a Republican as doing it.

as for secession just try and see what happens! And as for Texas, you guys are free to go anytime!

 

[Tristan]

I know I've seen this topic before. Somewhere.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/64915-obama-prepares-to-shred-constitution-a-little-3.html

Just thinking out loud but I believe part of the intent of the law was not only to keep congress-critters from voting themselves a possible pay raise but also to limit the same circle of cronies from being forever in power in whatever manifistation that power is.

Of course Obama (and Nixon and Johnson and Bill Clinton etc) could avoid this problem alltogether by picking qualified people from outside the Washington elite.