Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State (12.2.08)
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer (1.29.09)
The issue is The United States Constitution but, don't let that get in the way, because as Gabriel Malor states over at Ace of Spades: (there is precedent)
[...] Is the case going to get anywhere? Doubtful. They let William Saxbe get away with it in the 1970s, so there's precedent. Also, who has standing? As with the Obama Birther lawsuits, it's difficult to find someone who has suffered injury to a protected interest. [...]
So, because something was done unconstitutionally and illegally before, it is OK to do it again? That kind of round-robin buffoonery is what has gone wrong in this Nation. The attitude now is, "Hey. We did it before so it is OK to do it now." I'll remember that when I get my next speeding ticket. All I need to do is go to court and say, "Hey. I was speeding last week and it was fine. What's the difference?"
What does the US Constitution expressly state? Article 1, Section 6:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
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.
The "it's difficult to find someone who has suffered injury to a protected interest" meme is pathetically ill-conceived and stated. In addition, that statement is flawed from its conception. What's wrong with abiding by the United States Constitution? The people that have "suffered injury" are the American People. When the political leadership usurps the US Constitution to suit an end, why then should We The People abide by the US Constitution? What are our constraints and obligations to it? Because our elected cockroaches don't give a damn we shouldn't either?
And, the very selection of The Rodham is flawed. She "promised a new era in American diplomacy". Gateway Pundit wants to know if her prior "new era" is going to be the same as the "new new era". I would say that The Rodham will be tomorrow as she has always been in the past...an egotistical budding Leninist. I wonder what she will do with the philanderer?
Every Senator that voted for her confirmation needs to be replaced and I don't care who they are. If we cannot trust our elected cockroaches to abide by the US Constitution, we can go one of two ways. Do as they do and ignore the Law of The Land and do as we please or replace them with strict Constitutionalists. Which way would be more productive? If you have an answer, feel free to place them in the comments section.
I reject the "Saxbe fix". It was unconstitutional then. It is unconstitutional now. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the bypass of the stated text and context by "undoing an emolument".
In a previously published observation, those enamored by and supporting The Rodham have simply been beguiled.
As a matter of record, I will add to this post via the "update" function, the Judicial Watch articles in full. The above is simply my observations.
Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- December 2, 2008
Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton Appointment
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution 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 encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.
Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- January 29, 2009
Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. 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 Constitution of the United States.
Under the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the "emoluments" of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.
Specifically, article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution 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 encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called "Saxbe fix" last month, reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, allowing notably Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior.
Judicial Watch's lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate . . . ." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.
"This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution is not to be trifled with," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."