Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree, it is a very interesting legal question to ponder. I don't think it will, nor do I think it should prohibit Hillary from becoming SOS. They will do the same as they've done in the past and adjust the salary back and move on.
And for the record, I think Hillary will be do a great job!
Since it is an interesting question and at least facially disqualifies her, the question is why do you feel it shouldn't matter?
Do you view the entire Constitution from a strictly literal standpoint?
Yes. I am a strict Constitutionalist, and if something is not in the Constitution then the federal government doesn't have the authority to do it. I don't believe in a "living" Constitution or any kind of "implied powers."
There are problems with that position as well, however. For example, on a strict reading of the Constitution, the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and more specifically to "Congress." This includes the religious and speech protections. So, for example, a State could outlaw religion or, conversely, establish a "state" church, and your strict reading of the Constitution wouldn't prohibit it.
States have their own Constitutions that guarantee these rights as well.
no steerpike, I don't think you are right on this presumption.There are problems with that position as well, however. For example, on a strict reading of the Constitution, the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and more specifically to "Congress." This includes the religious and speech protections. So, for example, a State could outlaw religion or, conversely, establish a "state" church, and your strict reading of the Constitution wouldn't prohibit it.
Sure, but State Constitutions are much more easily amended than the Federal one. If a State eliminated in its own Constitutional First and Second amendment protections, you wouldn't feel that the Federal Constitution ought to constrain them? Or would it be ok in your view for them to then ban religion and guns? As a hypothetical.
no steerpike, I don't think you are right on this presumption.
Mainly because the Constitution, says that what is NOT in the constitution is left to the states or to the people.
Since the 1st and second ARE in the US Constitution, then the states CAN NOT over ride it.
care
The people of the state would have to vote on it, and I doubt they would vote their own protections away.
yes, states like massachusetts kept their State Church long after the constitution was formed, but i believe it was the 14th amendment? that clarified it, and they had to disolve their state sponsored Church.
That wasn't the question. The reason I posed it as a hypothetical is so we can build certain assumptions into the question. The question assumed, of course, that they did vote them away, and my question to you is would you be OK saying the Bill of Rights doesn't constrain the States and they are free to do as they wish?
if the states can take away the 1st and the 2nd, why not the 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th etc?
Well it is a ridiculous situation, for what reason would the people decide that they know longer want their basic freedoms?
In other words, the answer is no you wouldn't support it and you do not wish to admit it.
The whole point of a hypothetical is to assess a viewpoint. It doesn't matter why they'd do it. Most people who claim to be strict constructionists are not, and it appears you are not. That's fine. I'm not either.
I would not support the amendment of the State Constitution saying we do not have our basic rights, that is to be sure.
And such an amendment would never pass, regardless.
However, it seems I have to play your little game or risk looking like a hypocrite. If the people of a state voted to do away with their freedom of speech, for the sake of your hypothetical situation, then the state legislature may then make laws that prohibit the freedom of speech. However, the federal legislature may not as it would still be constrained by the First Amendment.