Constitutionality of Clinton as Secretary of State...

Well, if it wasn't for the Supreme Court-created Incorporation Doctrine under the 14th amendment, the States could do away with all of them.

But the point is, a strict interpretation of the Constitution gets you to that point, and that was the situation when the country was founded.

The incorporation of the 14th amendment to the states was created by the Supreme Court, it's not actually stated in the 14th amendment.

but what about this?

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

you are leaving OUT article 6 in your presumption, no?

care
 
but what about this?



you are leaving OUT article 6 in your presumption, no?

care

Not at all, Care. What you are not understanding is that the Bill of Rights explicitly states in the First Amendment that it applies to "Congress." So it is the Supreme Law of the Land, but since it States explicitly that is applied to "Congress" then it doesn't go beyond that until you get the Court incorporating if off of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but a provision directed to Senators doesn't automatically apply to you and I because we are not Senators. Likewise, a provision explicitly directed to Congress did not apply to State or local governments because they are not Congress. The Court had to make the connection after the 14th amendment was passed.
 
Ok. Well that's a consistent position. It isn't a game, however, it is called a 'hypothetical' and it is a logical tool used for precisely this purpose.

Most people I've known who claim to be constructionists would balk at the State's being able to do such a thing. That said, however, a old colleague of mine (I taught Constitutional law for a while at a small college) was very much a Constructionist and his immediate answer to that hypothetical would be that certainly the States had the power to do that, although he wouldn't support the idea of them doing it.

That's a consistent Constructionist viewpoint.

The people are protected from the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. They are protected from their state government by their state constitution. If they decide that they no longer want this protection, then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

What one also has to keep in mind, however, is that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The federal government would probably cite this in forcing the state to stop such an amendment.
 
The people are protected from the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. They are protected from their state government by their state constitution. If they decide that they no longer want this protection, then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

What one also has to keep in mind, however, is that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The federal government would probably cite this in forcing the state to stop such an amendment.

Well, NOW they would be able to stop the States. But not based on that clause. After all, voting and amending the Constitution is 'due process of law' in and of itself.

But the Supreme Court has interpreted parts of the 14th amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's not a constructionist reading, but the Court has said it is included in there. It's not too dissimilar from how the court has said abortion is Constitutionally protected. They found the right in the Constitution even though it is not explicitly stated. The Court also 'found' the Bill of Rights to be incorporated into the 14th amendment even though it is not explicitly stated.
 
Not at all, Care. What you are not understanding is that the Bill of Rights explicitly states in the First Amendment that it applies to "Congress." So it is the Supreme Law of the Land, but since it States explicitly that is applied to "Congress" then it doesn't go beyond that until you get the Court incorporating if off of the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but a provision directed to Senators doesn't automatically apply to you and I because we are not Senators. Likewise, a provision explicitly directed to Congress did not apply to State or local governments because they are not Congress. The Court had to make the connection after the 14th amendment was passed.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, ok, let me think about that and do a little research, as the ''Devil's advocate''! :D

care
 
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, ok, let me think about that and do a little research, as the ''Devil's advocate''! :D

care

Sure thing. Look up the Incorporation Doctrine for example. And if you read the First Amendment, you will see that "Congress" is the first word in it.

There are lots of interesting tidbits in the Constitution that aren't commonly known or thought about. For example, Congress has the power to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article III. Think about that one for a moment. That's huge if ever used.
 
Well, NOW they would be able to stop the States. But not based on that clause. After all, voting and amending the Constitution is 'due process of law' in and of itself.

But the Supreme Court has interpreted parts of the 14th amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's not a constructionist reading, but the Court has said it is included in there. It's not too dissimilar from how the court has said abortion is Constitutionally protected. They found the right in the Constitution even though it is not explicitly stated. The Court also 'found' the Bill of Rights to be incorporated into the 14th amendment even though it is not explicitly stated.

The Supreme Court defines "Constitutional Law." I would argue that "Constitutional Law" and the Constitution are not the same thing, despite the claims of the Supreme Court.
 
The Supreme Court defines "Constitutional Law." I would argue that "Constitutional Law" and the Constitution are not the same thing, despite the claims of the Supreme Court.

Sure. But it is then Constitutional Law that makes the Bill of Rights apply to the States. The Constitution itself doesn't do it.
 
Here's some food for thought. I don't know how much the pay was increased, but as far as I understand, the only way to increase the pay is through Congressional legislation. If the increase in pay only increased the pay by the amount of inflation, then it is not really a pay increase. In other words, if the rate of increase only kept up with inflation, then this would be considered a cost of living increase and not an actual pay increase. It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this.
 
Here's some food for thought. I don't know how much the pay was increased, but as far as I understand, the only way to increase the pay is through Congressional legislation. If the increase in pay only increased the pay by the amount of inflation, then it is not really a pay increase. In other words, if the rate of increase only kept up with inflation, then this would be considered a cost of living increase and not an actual pay increase. It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this.

The Constitution doesn't differentiate between "cost of living" and what you call an "actual pay increase." If the pay was increased then that legislator is ineligible under the Constitution.
 
The Constitution doesn't differentiate between "cost of living" and what you call an "actual pay increase." If the pay was increased then that legislator is ineligible under the Constitution.

it DOES if you discern the ''intent'' of the rule...

also, just think about what you said Kev,....if cost of living raises which all of congress and gvt officials get EVERY YEAR would eliminate all of congress for any future administration appointments for secretary of state etc...........

certainly, this was NOT their intent? And IF it was their intent, what do you see as their reasoning behind this clause?

care
 
it DOES if you discern the ''intent'' of the rule...

also, just think about what you said Kev,....if cost of living raises which all of congress and gvt officials get EVERY YEAR would eliminate all of congress for any future administration appointments for secretary of state etc...........

certainly, this was NOT their intent? And IF it was their intent, what do you see as their reasoning behind this clause?

care

It doesn't eliminate anyone in Congress from ever serving as Secretary of State, it simply stops them from doing it until their term is up. The intent was clearly to avoid corruption.
 
The Constitution doesn't differentiate between "cost of living" and what you call an "actual pay increase." If the pay was increased then that legislator is ineligible under the Constitution.

Since there is no differentiation, does that not leave it up to interpretation? It can easily be argued that a cost of living increase is not an increase at all.
 
Since there is no differentiation, does that not leave it up to interpretation? It can easily be argued that a cost of living increase is not an increase at all.

No, the Constitution cannot be left up to interpretation, because then the government would be able to interpret the Constitution to allow them to do whatever they want. If the wages of an office went up during a legislator's term, then that legislator may not be appointed to that office during their term.

"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 encreased 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." - United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 6
 
No, the Constitution cannot be left up to interpretation, because then the government would be able to interpret the Constitution to allow them to do whatever they want. If the wages of an office went up during a legislator's term, then that legislator may not be appointed to that office during their term.

"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 encreased 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." - United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 6

Can you please tell me when the last time was that the Constitution was not left up to interpretation? As I recall, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court, to interpret the Consitution. History shows us that this has been done for the last two centuries. In most decisions, when the Constitution is interpreted, not everyone is happy with the interpretation.

If there was no need for interpretation, there would be no need for the Supreme Court, now would there?
 
Can you please tell me when the last time was that the Constitution was not left up to interpretation? As I recall, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court, to interpret the Consitution. History shows us that this has been done for the last two centuries. In most decisions, when the Constitution is interpreted, not everyone is happy with the interpretation.

If there was no need for interpretation, there would be no need for the Supreme Court, now would there?

The Supreme Court has other roles besides Constitutional Interpretation. In fact, the Constitution itself never says the Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of the Constitution. Justice Marshall took that power early on in the Marbury v. Madison decision.
 
It doesn't eliminate anyone in Congress from ever serving as Secretary of State, it simply stops them from doing it until their term is up. The intent was clearly to avoid corruption.

how? how would it avoid corruption?

if the sec of state had not been given a raise then a congressman could serve in this position? so it does not stop a senator from doing such without a raise being given.....so WHAT was behind the clause, what was its true intent?
 
how? how would it avoid corruption?

if the sec of state had not been given a raise then a congressman could serve in this position? so it does not stop a senator from doing such without a raise being given.....so WHAT was behind the clause, what was its true intent?

The point of it was to stop a legislator that voted to raise the pay of the office from serving in that office until their term was up. Corruption would be voting to raise the pay of an office, and then being appointed to that office and receiving the increased pay.
 
The point of it was to stop a legislator that voted to raise the pay of the office from serving in that office until their term was up. Corruption would be voting to raise the pay of an office, and then being appointed to that office and receiving the increased pay.

PRECISELY!

NOW.....since clinton never voted to do such, and it was president bush, THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, THAT GAVE THE SECRETARY OF STATE, the raise and NOT the congress/senate, then following the intent of the clause, clinton would be eligible, imo.

Care
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top