Is Hillary Ineligible For Cabinet?
A conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch is arguing that thanks to a Constitutional clause known as the “Emoluments Clause,” Hillary Clinton cannot legally become secretary of state until her Senate term expires in 2013.
Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution says this: “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 word "Emoluments" is a reference to salary or compensation.
Judicial Watch's argument, then, is that because President Bush signed legislation increasing the salary (or Emoluments) of the secretary of state in January 2008 – while Clinton was in the Senate – she cannot, by virtue of this clause, be appointed to the office during her elected term.
Senate Democrats are now working on legislation to pave the way for Clinton to become secretary of state, despite the clause. There is precedent for doing so: As the New York Times notes, "In the past, Congress has gotten around this by passing a resolution cutting the salary for the office at stake back to what it was before the nominee’s most recent election."
The maneuver even has a name: The “Saxbe fix,” named after Richard Nixon attorney general nominee Sen. William Saxbe. Bill Clinton also used the Saxbe fix when nominating Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as treasury secretary.
But Judicial Watch says the Saxbe Fix doesn't do the job, since "it cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress."
"Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause," the group claims.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines dismissed the group's criticism.
“This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,” he told the Times. “But putting frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we’re confident it will be here too.”
And CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen doesn't expect it to be a serious issue.
“This is a non-story raised by the same people who hounded the Clintons a decade ago," he told Hotsheet. "It’s going to go away as quickly as it came on.”
Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution says this: “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 word "Emoluments" is a reference to salary or compensation.
(AP)
Senate Democrats are now working on legislation to pave the way for Clinton to become secretary of state, despite the clause. There is precedent for doing so: As the New York Times notes, "In the past, Congress has gotten around this by passing a resolution cutting the salary for the office at stake back to what it was before the nominee’s most recent election."
The maneuver even has a name: The “Saxbe fix,” named after Richard Nixon attorney general nominee Sen. William Saxbe. Bill Clinton also used the Saxbe fix when nominating Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as treasury secretary.
But Judicial Watch says the Saxbe Fix doesn't do the job, since "it cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress."
"Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause," the group claims.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines dismissed the group's criticism.
“This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,” he told the Times. “But putting frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we’re confident it will be here too.”
And CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen doesn't expect it to be a serious issue.
“This is a non-story raised by the same people who hounded the Clintons a decade ago," he told Hotsheet. "It’s going to go away as quickly as it came on.”
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 88 CommentsThey give Republicans a bad name.
Good post.
Now Clinton didn''t get involved in the creation of the job of secretary of state, but she was serving in the Senate when the salary was increased, and that is all that is requred. As a matter of fact she did actually vote for the raise; but to be fair, it is unlikely that Senator Clinton contemplated ever being nominated to that cabinet position, so she cannot be faulted; except in accepting what she knows to be an unContitutional offer.
So whay not check out Article IV section 4 of that same meaningless constitution: "The United States shall guarntee to every State in this Union, a Repbublican from of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. ...."
So just when is ANY part of the Government going to stop this open borders Invasion of the United States by illegals. It''s not just a petty State law violation, nor a Federal law violation; it is Unconstitutional for the Government to ignore their Constitutional sworn duty to the States.
~@~
This rule has to do with the Senator in question, increasing the pay with foreknowledge of their attaining the office in question.
If this rule stands as proposed, this effectively allows a sitting President to eliminate persons for the incoming Cabinet via Executive Order.
Judicial Watch should know better.
Simply AMAZING how the Republican Party want to keep control and dicktate policy when they are not in office or in power any more. The Economy is in the Dumps the US DOLLAR is in the Toilet just when are these Republicans going to start to work for the betterment of the USA and get this country back on track.
Posted by MatrixRX2003 at 02:16 PM : Dec 03, 2008
Absolutely on point! Is it any wonder why the American people have such distaste for the Republican Crime Family?
Did the Founding Fathers believe the outgoing President should have this awesome power over who gets allowed to serve in the next administration?
I know for a fact, they never envisioned such notions as EXECUTIVE ORDERS else they might have mentioned it in the Constitution.
If anything is unconstitutional, it is the Pay increase seeing as it had nothing to do with the Senate voting on or approving such a raise.
His "Executive Orders" were the end product of a petulant, subborn child who was given power normally reserved for ADULTS WITH BRAINS.
I hope this is the LAST time America is FOOLISH to elect a playboy, ex-alkie, who finished at the BOTTOM of his graduating class. Duh!!!
Posted by nowaymcgoo at 02:28 PM : Dec 03, 2008
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. A Republican associate of mine moaned that the "party" didn''t last long enough...the past 8 years made him a rich man..at OUR EXPENSE!
Bil Clinton was the most shameful President we ever had. Only Johnson ran a close second!
The Clinton are so greddy and full of themselves!
Posted by republic76 at 02:44 PM : Dec 03, 2008
Are you a partisan or just f''n stupid?
GWB will go down as the WORST President ever and will never be superseded by anyone. Period!
Posted by republic76 at 02:44 PM : Dec 03, 2008
All because of a SINGLE and LOUSY BJ ???? I''d really hate to ask a Repug what really scares them about Hillary or better yet Billary.
Posted by Terrapin78
The Times of London recently polled historians from both sides of the Atlantic for their lists of presidents in order of worthiness. "W" came next to last ahead of only Buchanan, who the panel blamed for not stopping the Civil War.
Judicial Watch, Inc., calls itself "a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law."
Just the first two words prove they are liars. There''s no such thing as "conservative and non-partisan" in this country.
Posted by One_Texan
I know Judicial Watch is populated by right-wing scum, but who did they murder? JFK? Harvey Milk? C''mon who?
That definitely puts us all in our place. How dare we question Ivy League arrogance? If you didn''t go to a prestigious university, you have no right to live, let alone question.
obama might not be the best but she is just the WORST!!
They are crazy!
-----------
If people who post here are any indication, there is no such thing as liberal and non-partisan either. Where does that leave the country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by specialty8
Sour grapes anyone? Your guy lost, get over it. Move along, nothing to see here people.
Posted by lochlan
How did we vote Clinton out when he didn''t run in the election? Remember it was Gore from whom Bush stole the presidency. I''m think I''m right in saying neither Clinton has ever lost an election.
He? Don''t you mean she? Or did you forget the primaries?
Posted by mbourn2
I can''t imagine being liberal and voting for a republican if that''s what you mean - but I think in general liberals are closer to being non-partisan than Judicial Watch is.
Posted by lochlan
There''s a difference between being voted out and not being voted in. In the latter case the difference in policy need not be that great - you''re both on the same side in the long run. In the former your not on the same side at all.
Posted by specialty8
If that''s what the "Gang of Four" are thinking, I think they''re in for a shock. If I were Obama, the first thing I''d do is figure out a way to rid myself of Pelosi and Reid; they''re both objectionable and ineffectual - they need to be replaced.
Posted by kevinkkloste
You obviously don''t know an empty suit when you see one, otherwise you''d have never voted for "W," the emptiest suit in history.
Posted by usclimey
Okay, if that''s the way you want to look at it, that''s fine. In the end I don''t know if I could have stayed here if the most corrupt woman in the Democratic party got a three branch government at her whim. And I''d never vote republican EVER, especially after these last Regime is doing a fine job at planting themselves pretty well in the Obama Administration.
Posted by lochlan
Don''t know what the missing words is about. They were their when I hit the Publish button.
That is the point,get rid of them.Anybody thinks The Clintons,Pelosi,Reid,Kennedy,and Byrd have any respect for this guy that has never even ran a car wash then they beleive in Santa.Face it, he has no idea and will have to be told what to do.
Like Nixon, the Clintons believe they are above the law. Hopefully these people will show them they are wrong -- before the third week of January 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by specialty8
Really? The man hasn''t even taken office yet and you''re already on his back. Clinton is a far better choice for the position than Condeleza Rice ever was. If you want to be angry over something, be angry over the last minute further trashing of this country that Bush is doing before he leaves office. Like what you ask? Like easing environmental restrictions on manufacturing companies, among other things. Look it up for yourself and use your head wisely next time.
Posted by specialty8
Note I only said get rid of Pelosi and Reid, nothing about the Clintons. I figured when Hilary dropped out of the race she had to have some sort of a promise from Obama - my guess was Sec of State. Bill could run for Hilary''s senate seat - that would be interesting dont you think? Stop underestimating Obama - he might be really good, but he could be great - he has that aura.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by usclimey
The word is taken directly from Art I of the US Constitution... but you are probably right... Our founding fathers were just trying to make themselves look smart.:
%u201CNo 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 . . . .%u201D U.S. Const., Art. I, s 6, cl. 2.
Well we do agree on some things. I hope the old Clinton team can fix things,although they have no record of much,as things were good when they got there.The best thing they did was nothing but let Willy chase some skirts.
Posted by kevinkkloste at 04:13 PM : Dec 03, 200
To effectively govern the "empty heads" like you and your hero Bush!
I think these posters must be related to George and Laura in some way...and I have to say that if that''s the case, "IT S.U.C.K.S. TO BE YOU!" LOL!!!!
Are you aware that most of the PLANET views George W. Bush as an INCOMPETENT, GREEDY, HYPOCRITICAL WAR MONGER? Do a little traveling and find out for yourselves!
Get OVER IT Republicans and lets work together and get this country back on track and fix the economy. In 3 years from now that 1,095 days you can start talking about getting Obama out of Office.
Until then Get over IT !
To me this is speaking of "postitons being created during the term of said Senator, for the ''said'' Senator" . The Office of S.O.S. has been in existance much longer than Hillary has, This does not apply to her.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 88 Comments