Clinton’s nomination constitutional?



Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution says the following:

“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.”

Translation: A lawmaker cannot fill a position if the salary for that position has been raised during that lawmaker’s term in office.

In January, President Bush signed an executive order increasing the salary for the secretary of state and other Cabinet positions by $4,700. Hillary Clinton has been in the Senate since January 2001.

Case closed, says the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.

    • Jayson
    • December 5th, 2008

    The begining of the end of the consitution, first its the the ineligibility clause of the consitution. Whats next the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, the right to life (abortion). When we start looking for loopholes in the foundation of the country its time to change. And he hasn’t even taken office yet. How can a man who knows he will be asked to serve protect and DEFEND the consitution when he already knows he has defied it. Congratulation America you have elected a man who has already faild at his job.

    • Joe
    • December 5th, 2008

    The Constitution of the United States is very clear in this regard. The salary for the cabinet post of Secretary of State was in fact increased during Hillary Clintons term in the United States Senate, making her ineligable to assume that office. Even if she accepts a lower salary or if by Executive order Barack Obama decreases the salary, it doesn’t erase the fact that the salary was in fact increased during her term! I would liken that to saying I didn’t rob the bank because I gave the money back.
    Now comes the big question: Will Barack Obama faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States or will he try to circumvent it and continue with Hillary Clinton?

    • Ed Fern
    • December 5th, 2008

    Washington has been ignoring our Constitution since the 1830s when Congress funded Christian Missions in Kansas in clear violation of the First Amendment. Why would we expect Washington to now pay attention to something so obscure as this conflict of interest provision. Anyone who believes our Constitution is superior to the vested interests of unions and defense contractors is naive. Who do we think owns the political parties, the press, TV news media? It surely isn’t the founding fathers.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: