And I don't use the term "unconstitutional" the way the liberal left uses it in order to promote their agenda. It seems that SENATOR CLINTON'S appointment is actually in violation of the Constitution. 
I found articles on this on MSNBC, the NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, and several other sources.
First, I'll quote the section of the Constitution that applies:
I found articles on this on MSNBC, the NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, and several other sources.First, I'll quote the section of the Constitution that applies:
ARTICLE I, SECTION 6: "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."
Pete Williams, of the NATIONAL BARACK CHANNEL wrote that many legal scholars believe this to be President-elect Obama's first violation of the Constitution. Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a Constitutional law expert at the ST. THOMAS SCHOOL OF LAW in Minneapolis told NBC, "The content of the rule here is much broader than its purpose, and the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule." The above quote from the Constitution is very clear that no Senator or Representative can be appointed to a job if the salary for that job had been raised during the Senator's or Representative's term of office. In this case, this prohibition applies. The salary for all Cabinet officers was raised from $186,600 per year to $191,300 per year after Hillary was elected to the Senate.
This is not without precedent. A number of presidents in the past have done the same thing from William Taft to George H. W. Bush. The norm is for Congress to reduce the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee can take it without receiving the benefit of the pay increase. This procedure, even though it goes at least as far back as WILLIAM TAFT (1909 -1913),
has become known as "The Saxbe Fix" after former President RICHARD NIXON's 
nomination of Senator William Saxbe for attorney general. According to the WASHINGTON POST in 1973, ten Senators who were all Democrats, voted against the Saxbe nomination on Constitutional grounds. SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD 
, D-West Virginia, who is the only remaining Senator of the ten, said at the time, "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the Constitutional obstacle." I've searched the internet and also checked Senator Byrd's site to see if he had any reaction to this. I have found none. Could it be the difference is former President Nixon was a Republican and President-elect Obama is a Democrat?
Another question was raised about who would enforce this. JUDICIAL WATCH has filed a complaint, but realistically I don't think it will go anywhere. If it ended up in the courts, there are too many activist judges that are Democrat-friendly. Jeffrey Toobin, who appeared on CNN recently, agreed (not with my observation about the activist judges of course!) I agree that this is unenforceable as an individual can't bring a lawsuit, or anyone else for that matter. Click HERE to watch the interview. Just ignore the snideness and poking fun at Judicial Watch which is typical of the Clinton News Network anyway.
Pete Williams, of the NATIONAL BARACK CHANNEL wrote that many legal scholars believe this to be President-elect Obama's first violation of the Constitution. Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a Constitutional law expert at the ST. THOMAS SCHOOL OF LAW in Minneapolis told NBC, "The content of the rule here is much broader than its purpose, and the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule." The above quote from the Constitution is very clear that no Senator or Representative can be appointed to a job if the salary for that job had been raised during the Senator's or Representative's term of office. In this case, this prohibition applies. The salary for all Cabinet officers was raised from $186,600 per year to $191,300 per year after Hillary was elected to the Senate.
This is not without precedent. A number of presidents in the past have done the same thing from William Taft to George H. W. Bush. The norm is for Congress to reduce the salary of the job back to what it was so the nominee can take it without receiving the benefit of the pay increase. This procedure, even though it goes at least as far back as WILLIAM TAFT (1909 -1913),
has become known as "The Saxbe Fix" after former President RICHARD NIXON's nomination of Senator William Saxbe for attorney general. According to the WASHINGTON POST in 1973, ten Senators who were all Democrats, voted against the Saxbe nomination on Constitutional grounds. SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD , D-West Virginia, who is the only remaining Senator of the ten, said at the time, "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the Constitutional obstacle." I've searched the internet and also checked Senator Byrd's site to see if he had any reaction to this. I have found none. Could it be the difference is former President Nixon was a Republican and President-elect Obama is a Democrat?Another question was raised about who would enforce this. JUDICIAL WATCH has filed a complaint, but realistically I don't think it will go anywhere. If it ended up in the courts, there are too many activist judges that are Democrat-friendly. Jeffrey Toobin, who appeared on CNN recently, agreed (not with my observation about the activist judges of course!) I agree that this is unenforceable as an individual can't bring a lawsuit, or anyone else for that matter. Click HERE to watch the interview. Just ignore the snideness and poking fun at Judicial Watch which is typical of the Clinton News Network anyway.
One of the last things discussed during the CNN interview is why this prohibition was in the Constitution. When the question was raised, Mr. Toobin merely said, ". . . it was (written) a long time ago." The inference is of course that it's outdated. I have the answer to that question. The Founders wrote this clause to prevent the President from appointing friends, cohorts, cronies, or whatever into high paying jobs.
Even though this is starting to come out in the press little by little, there are no major headlines about this anywhere. Now, we all know that if this were a Republican making such a nomination, we would have it on as one of the top stories day and night ad nauseum, and everyone in America would have Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution thoroughly memorized.
8 comments:
I'm still waiting to see if anyone will make Obama prove his citizenship. I doubt anyone will do anything about this bit about Hillary. We've seen and heard enough about what the left believes about the Constitution. God Bless you Dirk, and thank you for posting this too!
That is interesting, but makes me wonder if it will just be ignored, a case of people now days doing what they want to do, regardless, and paying attention only to the rules as they might benefit them. We will have to watch whether others will raise an objection, and see how that plays out. Gerry
Hey Dirk, Guess what? The appointment hasn't been confirmed, so nothing "unconstitutional" has been done. This issue will definitely come up, unless, as in previous cases, the salary is dropped back to what it was before. My guess is that is what will happen.
You know it's not going to be changed and so do I. That's just how the world turns... The elite is in charge and do what they want. *M*
First of all I want to say that I like you, you are a very nice person. I usually don't comment much because I don't think that most people that would frequent your page would care for my opinions. All I am going to say here is that I can't think of a better person to be secretary of state than Hillary. She knows world leaders, has travelled extensively around the world, and has respect as well. Anyone that won't give Barrack Obama a chance and isn't on his side and an American and hoping his does right for all of us needs to look at the negativity that surrounds their own lives. If anyone here thinks we didn't need to change the current state of affairs in this country then you have all been asleep like Rip Van Winkle. I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh because of his hypocrasy, lies and mean spiritness. I'd hate to see you end up like him. Anyway, having said that, I do hope you will have a happy weekend. : )
I learned about this from the weekly Judicial Watch update that I receive. I don't think Hillary's appointment will be blocked, because it's been done before, as Tom Fitton pointed out. And nobody of either party is opposing her nomination. Let Obama appoint all the Clintons and their cronies that he wants to; I believe that it will come back to haunt him before it's all said and done.
Larry
I would have never known. Thanks for the info!
I'm a long-time from of Senator Byrd's - his health is not good; his age is obvious, and I doubt he has the inclination to get involved with matters of this type, now that he barely can hold his head up.
I think we should spend more time prosecuting the crimes of the Bush Administration and his cohorts who've broke a multitude of laws, and have brazenly put this country into the debt and dire straits it now is.
I happened across your blog using the stumble bar; it looks like you put a lot of work into it - probably we don't agree on much, but I admire anyone's efforts and commitment to be involved with our country's direction and condition.
Post a Comment