| Who told you about this place? |
| Clinton Appointment unconstitutional? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Monday Dec 1 2008, 08:55 PM (190 Views) | |
| famicommander | Monday Dec 1 2008, 08:55 PM Post #1 |
Wipe that face off your head, bitch.
  ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
From Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution: 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 "Emoluments" means payment or benefits; compensation for work. So what it says is that no one from Congress can be appointed to an office when the payment for said office had been increased during the Congress person's term. And yes, the salary for Secretary of State was increased during Clinton's time in the Senate. The rule exists to keep Senators from pushing for huge benefits, then striking a deal with the president-elect to reap said benefits. That's pretty damn clear right there. But it's perfectly fine, because Comrade Obama knows what's best for this country. He knows that the Constitution is just getting in the way, and it's best to violate it whenever convenient. I wonder what the Supreme Court has to say about this. I'd be very interested to know. |
|
Denver Broncos: defending champs, 8-6, next game 12/25 @ Kansas City Chiefs Colorado Rockies: 75-87, missed playoffs Colorado Avalanche: 11-18-1, next game 12/20 @ Minnesota Wild Denver Nuggets: 12-16, next game 12/20 @ Los Angeles Clippers Colorado Mammoth: first game 12/30 @ Buffalo Bandits Denver Outlaws: defending champs, first game 4/22 @ Charlotte Hounds Colorado State Rams football: 7-5, next game Idaho Bowl 12/22 vs Idaho Vandals Colorado State Rams basketball: 8-4, next game 12/22 vs Long Beach State 49ers Winnipeg Blue Bombers: 11-7, lost West Division Semifinal Denver Pioneers Lacrosse: first game 1/24 vs Johns Hopkins Blue Jays #2 Denver Pioneers Hockey: 12-3-3, next game 12/30 @ Providence College Friars | |
 |
 
|
| Frattracide's ghost | Monday Dec 1 2008, 09:06 PM Post #2 |
Baby Giraffe
|
The office of secretary of state was not created during Sen Clinton's term. |
| |
|
|
|
| famicommander | Monday Dec 1 2008, 09:07 PM Post #3 |
|
Wipe that face off your head, bitch.
|
Umm... So? It says "which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time" OR. If the payment increased while she was a Senator, she cannot legally serve. |
|
Denver Broncos: defending champs, 8-6, next game 12/25 @ Kansas City Chiefs Colorado Rockies: 75-87, missed playoffs Colorado Avalanche: 11-18-1, next game 12/20 @ Minnesota Wild Denver Nuggets: 12-16, next game 12/20 @ Los Angeles Clippers Colorado Mammoth: first game 12/30 @ Buffalo Bandits Denver Outlaws: defending champs, first game 4/22 @ Charlotte Hounds Colorado State Rams football: 7-5, next game Idaho Bowl 12/22 vs Idaho Vandals Colorado State Rams basketball: 8-4, next game 12/22 vs Long Beach State 49ers Winnipeg Blue Bombers: 11-7, lost West Division Semifinal Denver Pioneers Lacrosse: first game 1/24 vs Johns Hopkins Blue Jays #2 Denver Pioneers Hockey: 12-3-3, next game 12/30 @ Providence College Friars | |
|
|
|
| Frattracide's ghost | Monday Dec 1 2008, 09:15 PM Post #4 |
|
Baby Giraffe
|
You are misreading the sentence. " or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased " is an appositive The statement reads, very clearly, that if Congress creates an office or raises the pay to that office then members of that congress cannot hold that office. Since Congress neither created the office of, nor raised the pay of, Sec. of the State. There is no constitutional provision against Clinton holding office. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| famicommander | Monday Dec 1 2008, 09:23 PM Post #5 |
|
Wipe that face off your head, bitch.
|
Pay of the Secretary of State was increased during Clinton's term. It was raised by executive order, and the sentence clearly has no stipulation regarding how the payment was raised. It doesn't matter whether Congress or the president raised the pay. The pay was raised while she was in office, therefore she cannot serve. Law professor Michael Stokes Paulson: Are there any legitimate escape hatches to this constitutional bar? Let's consider them quickly. First, does the fact that the emoluments of the office were increased by executive order, pursuant to a general authorizing statute, take the case out of the Emoluments Clause rule? Plainly not. The clause is written in the delightfully ambiguous passive voice that we always discourage in our law students. "shall have been encreased ... by whom, exactly?!" The clause does not limit the application of its rule to direct statutory enactments. In the world in which legislation may be accomplished by delegation of general quasi-lawmaking authority to executive branch officials, there is no difference in legal principle between a direct legislative enactment and an executive order pursuant to specific legislative authorization. If pay increases may be accomplished, legally, by executive order, then those increases in emoluments fit within Article I, section 6's rule. If those increases occurred during the time for which Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate, they disqualify her, regardless of when the general statutory authorization for such increases was enacted. But wait! Wasn't the (probable) purpose of the Emoluments Clause to prevent congressional self-dealing in the form of creation of offices (or increasing their emoluments) and hoping to profit thereby by being appointed to such office? And isn't that purpose plainly inapplicable here? Perhaps. But the content of the rule here is broader than its purpose. And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule. Professor John O'Connor: As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. ยง 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate. The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton's current Senate term, which does not end until 2012. Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office "have been encreased" during Senator Clinton's current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of "the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013. I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton's current term. By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office's salary "shall have been encreased," without regard to exactly how it was increased. Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments "by the legislature of the U[nited] States," and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments. It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase. Clinton is not constitutionally allowed to serve as Secretary of State. Period. Payment of the office was raised by executive order while she was a Senator. The wording of the Constitution clearly states that if "emoluments whereof shall have been increased" she cannot serve. It does not say a damn thing about who had to be the one to raise the pay. If you believe in the Constitution, Clinton cannot serve. It's as simple as that. |
|
Denver Broncos: defending champs, 8-6, next game 12/25 @ Kansas City Chiefs Colorado Rockies: 75-87, missed playoffs Colorado Avalanche: 11-18-1, next game 12/20 @ Minnesota Wild Denver Nuggets: 12-16, next game 12/20 @ Los Angeles Clippers Colorado Mammoth: first game 12/30 @ Buffalo Bandits Denver Outlaws: defending champs, first game 4/22 @ Charlotte Hounds Colorado State Rams football: 7-5, next game Idaho Bowl 12/22 vs Idaho Vandals Colorado State Rams basketball: 8-4, next game 12/22 vs Long Beach State 49ers Winnipeg Blue Bombers: 11-7, lost West Division Semifinal Denver Pioneers Lacrosse: first game 1/24 vs Johns Hopkins Blue Jays #2 Denver Pioneers Hockey: 12-3-3, next game 12/30 @ Providence College Friars | |
|
|
|
| Frattracide's ghost | Monday Dec 1 2008, 09:44 PM Post #6 |
|
Baby Giraffe
|
No, it does contain that exact stipulation, the Article clearly states that congress cannot raise the pay of an office, then have a member hold that office. In this situation, this is not the case. The president authorized the pay raise not the congress. Action was not taken by the congress in which Clinton was a member. Using your logic, one would wonder why an article dedicated to defining the powers of congress suddenly goes of into a tangent about other offices. The phrase is clearly referencing the powers of congress. "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." If you remove the italicized portion, the clause still stands on it's own, because that portion does not define "During such time." Which means "during such time" refers both to the pay raise and the creation of office. Which means the pay raise regulation is limited very clearly as a restraint on congress and nobody else. the phrase is clearly referencing the powers of congress. In context, In verbiage, In letter and in spirit. Q.E.D. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| famicommander | Monday Dec 1 2008, 09:56 PM Post #7 |
|
Wipe that face off your head, bitch.
|
No. It says that they shall not be appointed to a civil office when a pay raise has been given during the time for which they were elected. It does not say a damn word about who raises the pay. Only that the pay was raised. |
|
Denver Broncos: defending champs, 8-6, next game 12/25 @ Kansas City Chiefs Colorado Rockies: 75-87, missed playoffs Colorado Avalanche: 11-18-1, next game 12/20 @ Minnesota Wild Denver Nuggets: 12-16, next game 12/20 @ Los Angeles Clippers Colorado Mammoth: first game 12/30 @ Buffalo Bandits Denver Outlaws: defending champs, first game 4/22 @ Charlotte Hounds Colorado State Rams football: 7-5, next game Idaho Bowl 12/22 vs Idaho Vandals Colorado State Rams basketball: 8-4, next game 12/22 vs Long Beach State 49ers Winnipeg Blue Bombers: 11-7, lost West Division Semifinal Denver Pioneers Lacrosse: first game 1/24 vs Johns Hopkins Blue Jays #2 Denver Pioneers Hockey: 12-3-3, next game 12/30 @ Providence College Friars | |
|
|
|
| whoozwah | Monday Dec 1 2008, 10:27 PM Post #8 |
Is it live, or is it Dave-orex?
|
I want a pay raise... |
Realtime Last.fm feed. I have everything scrobbling to it. It is possible to not understand without being confused. It is possible to be inaccessible without hiding. It is possible to be aware without being awake. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Board · Next Topic » |
12:43 AM Jul 13