• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary is ineligible to be SecState according to the US Constitution

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,983
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Article I, section 6 of the U.S. 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 encreased during such time."

January 2008 her pay was increased, making her ineligible.


I wonder if the Professor of Constitutional studies was aware of this clause when he selected Hilldog as SecState.

She is ineligible till 2013 according to the US Constitution.





Just sayin..... :lol:
 

Won't they just use the Saxbe Fix that Nixon created?
 
Tucker Case said:
Won't they just use the Saxbe Fix that Nixon created?
Click to expand...



The Saxbe fix is unconstitutional as well.

You can't executive order something out of the Constitution, Nixon was wrong.

Which is the reason Reagan did not appoint Orin Hatch to the supreme court.

It was last used by Clinton to appoint lloyd Bensten to SecTreasurer again unconstitutionally.
 

But you know these lawyers and their precedents. If it went through twice, it'll go through a third time.
 
Tucker Case said:
But you know these lawyers and their precedents. If it went through twice, it'll go through a third time.
Click to expand...





Do you think that because of who it is we will see a long drawn out fight?


and yeah, screw the constitution when you have power, eh?

:lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Do you think that because of who it is we will see a long drawn out fight?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The dems have the majority and they love her.


and yeah, screw the constitution when you have power, eh?

:lol:
Click to expand...

That is the precedent, unfortunately. There hasn't been a president in my memory who didn't have that attitude on certain issues.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Looks like you are right.


The fix is already in. :roll:


Right Side Politics Examiner: Senate approves Hillary's Saxbe fix
Click to expand...

I figured as much. I'm not a fan of the fix, but it is what it is. In the terms of constitutional violations it isn't the most eggregious violation. The real problem is that neither party wants to fight it too hard because they want to be able to use it for their own advantage.

It should have been stopped immediately with Nixon. Now they'll both use it if they see an advantage.

That's why it passed with unanimous consent. And it is also why I hate both parties equally as being two sides of the same big-government coin..
 
I think danarhea covered this one a month or so ago
 
Since when did the government care about the Constitution?
 

It's not illegal when the President does it.
 
There are a few loopholes the President Elect can exploit.

1. If Hillary accepts a lower/equal compensation to the original payment then there is no increase in payment. So it's not in contradiction with the Constitution.

2. Also, she may not have to take a lower salary after all. The pay increase was actually the Cost of Living Adjustment(COLA) to ALL cabinet members.


If we have X(original salary) and Y(COLA). Then X+Y will not be a salary increase since X has been depreciating in value. And if Y is equal to that depreciation then adding the COLA does not increase the value of the salary, but keeps it roughly constant. Making it constitutional.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with the "Saxbe Fix" IMO. It maintains the intent of the law: to prevent congressmen from voting to raise their own pay prior to taking their new office.

On the other hand, if we're going to go by the letter of the law instead of the obvious intent, then there's an easy out from Hillary (and anyone else who does this in the future) due to the poor wording of the Constitution: "No Senator or Congressman..." will not apply to her the moment she resigns her seat.
 



what????


read it again.. the intent was clear, i think this is wrong from saxbe on.
 
Ikari said:
Since when did the government care about the Constitution?
Click to expand...

After 8 years of Bush we don't have much of one left.....but the one we have is still hangin by a thread.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
what????


read it again.. the intent was clear, i think this is wrong from saxbe on.
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstand Kandahar. He's admitting that Saxbe doesn't obey the letter of the law because the letter of the law clearly prohibits a Senator from taking such an office, even if they don't benefit from the pay increase.

But, his point is that the letter of the law says that any Senator cannot do so. However, Hillary won't be a Senator once she quits, she'll just be a regular citizen. The law is poorly written because the strict reading of it makes it so that simply quitting the office keeps a person out of violation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…