Little-Acorn
02-10-2010, 12:46 PM
This is a curious one.
This was brought up when she was first appointed as Secretary of State. The Constitution has a provision saying that anyone in a civil office (like, Senator from New York), who is there when that group raises the pay of an appointed office (as the Senate did while Hillary was a Senator, more than once), cannot then be appointed into that office until her elected term expires.
This has come up with other people in the past. The solution has been to roll back the salary to that person's pre-election level, and then appoint them under that reduced salary. When Billary was appointed, I figured, "That's good enough, now appoint her and be done with it, it's the President's privilege."
But now they are pointing out that, whether the pay gets rolled back or not, it's still true that the pay was increased while Hillary was a Senator, and the Const does not say, "unless the pay gets rolled back later". Technically, her appointment IS in violation of the letter of the law. And the law is VERY clear. She can't be SecState until January 2013, when the six-year Senate term she was elected to, expires.
A pretty trivial case, but the Const says what it says. And the article also points out that people who work for the SecState (such as the Foreign Service officer described here), take an oath to support and defend the Costitution, and THEY are in violation of their oath if they work for someone who is ineligible.
Will the Supremes rule that, since the pay-rollback was used for other people in the distant past, that makes it "established law" and Hillary is OK? Or will they say, Sorry, a Congressional maneuver can't overrule the U.S. Constitution no matter how many times it's tried, and Hillary is outta there?
Technically they must rule the latter. But will they?
----------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124614
Hillary's eligibility challenged in Supreme Court
Can political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution?
Posted: February 09, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern
by Bob Unruh
A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions whether members of the "political branches of the government" can "evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative 'fix.'"
The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton's eligibility to be secretary of state.
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: "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."
The case brought on behalf of a career government employee outlines how during Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to $186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.
The complaint challenges whether a resolution adopted by Congress as Clinton was preparing for the position that rolled back the compensation to the level of Jan. 1, 2007, could remove the obstacle to Clinton's appointment.
WND reported when Judicial Watch filed its notice that it would bring the arguments to the Supreme Court, and now the brief in the case has been submitted.
The lawsuit asserts Clinton is ineligible because she was serving as a senator from New York immediately prior to her selection by President Obama as secretary of state.
The case notes the text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
The case was brought on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel, who argues that "compensation and other emoluments" of the office of secretary of state rose during Clinton's tenure in the Senate.
A special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, concluding Rodearmel lacked standing.
But Judicial Watch has argued Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former senator as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the U.S. Constitution.
"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as secretary of state until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution."
The newly filed brief states "the salary of the U.S. Secretary of State was increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's second term in the U.S. Senate. A subsequent 'rollback' of the salary by Congress does nothing to remedy this ineligibility for office, as no such 'work around' is authorized by the Constitution and cannot alter the fact that these increases in salary occurred."
"The Joint Resolution did not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office … increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate.
"At the core of the case is the casual disregard of a clear and unambiguous directive of the Constitution," the brief states.
This was brought up when she was first appointed as Secretary of State. The Constitution has a provision saying that anyone in a civil office (like, Senator from New York), who is there when that group raises the pay of an appointed office (as the Senate did while Hillary was a Senator, more than once), cannot then be appointed into that office until her elected term expires.
This has come up with other people in the past. The solution has been to roll back the salary to that person's pre-election level, and then appoint them under that reduced salary. When Billary was appointed, I figured, "That's good enough, now appoint her and be done with it, it's the President's privilege."
But now they are pointing out that, whether the pay gets rolled back or not, it's still true that the pay was increased while Hillary was a Senator, and the Const does not say, "unless the pay gets rolled back later". Technically, her appointment IS in violation of the letter of the law. And the law is VERY clear. She can't be SecState until January 2013, when the six-year Senate term she was elected to, expires.
A pretty trivial case, but the Const says what it says. And the article also points out that people who work for the SecState (such as the Foreign Service officer described here), take an oath to support and defend the Costitution, and THEY are in violation of their oath if they work for someone who is ineligible.
Will the Supremes rule that, since the pay-rollback was used for other people in the distant past, that makes it "established law" and Hillary is OK? Or will they say, Sorry, a Congressional maneuver can't overrule the U.S. Constitution no matter how many times it's tried, and Hillary is outta there?
Technically they must rule the latter. But will they?
----------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124614
Hillary's eligibility challenged in Supreme Court
Can political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution?
Posted: February 09, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern
by Bob Unruh
A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions whether members of the "political branches of the government" can "evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative 'fix.'"
The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton's eligibility to be secretary of state.
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: "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."
The case brought on behalf of a career government employee outlines how during Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to $186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.
The complaint challenges whether a resolution adopted by Congress as Clinton was preparing for the position that rolled back the compensation to the level of Jan. 1, 2007, could remove the obstacle to Clinton's appointment.
WND reported when Judicial Watch filed its notice that it would bring the arguments to the Supreme Court, and now the brief in the case has been submitted.
The lawsuit asserts Clinton is ineligible because she was serving as a senator from New York immediately prior to her selection by President Obama as secretary of state.
The case notes the text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
The case was brought on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel, who argues that "compensation and other emoluments" of the office of secretary of state rose during Clinton's tenure in the Senate.
A special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, concluding Rodearmel lacked standing.
But Judicial Watch has argued Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former senator as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the U.S. Constitution.
"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as secretary of state until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution."
The newly filed brief states "the salary of the U.S. Secretary of State was increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's second term in the U.S. Senate. A subsequent 'rollback' of the salary by Congress does nothing to remedy this ineligibility for office, as no such 'work around' is authorized by the Constitution and cannot alter the fact that these increases in salary occurred."
"The Joint Resolution did not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office … increased during Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate.
"At the core of the case is the casual disregard of a clear and unambiguous directive of the Constitution," the brief states.