Comments on: Is Clinton Barred By Constitution From Secretary of State Job?

By: Dean Morley

Dean Morley — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:51:59 +0000

Hillary and Bill Clinton are liars and crooks, period. Remember Bosnia? She lied
about that too. She will not be welcomed in
the middle east, having spent time there for
the purpose of female rights, which will never happen over there. Taxpayer money for
no return. She has done nothing for New York State as a Senator. During Clinton’s presidency they took useless trips to Europe for 4 hour meetings and toured for two weeks playing his Sax. Millions of our taxpayer money was spent. They are nothing but money grabers and most Americans are sick of them.
Incidently, they were pot-smoking draft doggers as well.

By: jmoe

jmoe — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:10:28 +0000

Being a strict constructionist of the constitution, I see the word HE not SHE in this amendment. This clearly prevents men from taking on this position but not a woman. If I were Hillary I would not only take the job but demand that my salary not be decreased.

Maybe BHO will want to ask congress to amend the constitution to not be sexist! Note that all things presidential refer to HE!

By: Egoldberg

Egoldberg — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:00:38 +0000

The Saxbe fix also included a statute that if criminal defendant thought he was hurt by Saxbe being appointed U.S. attorney general, he could file a suit before a 3 judge federal panel challenging the constitutionality of the appointment. The decision could be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. The Saxbe appointment, and who could challenge it (standing), was the subject of a law school exam in my federal courts class. I knew of the statute, noted it, but went on to analyze the standing issue irrespective of the statute. I concluded that the issue could only be raised by a resident of the state where the senator/representative came from, because it affected the resident’s right to an honest and unbiased representative. The constitutional provision dates back to 18th century England where members of parliament would sell their vote in return for appointment to lucrative official positions. Today, the Supreme Court has cut back on standing and it would be very hard for anyone to challenge Clinton’s appointment.

By: Carlos Navarro

Carlos Navarro — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:26:05 +0000

The Constitutional snag that would bar Hillary Clinton from becoming Secretary of State would be simple to fix: Have Hillary take on the job pro bono–for the good of America–and then let the Wall Street moguls, Chinese generals, Saudi princes, international bankers, etc. who own her and husband Bill cover the family multi-million dollar living expenses, as they’ve been doing for the past 35 years.

By: comsense08

comsense08 — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:24:01 +0000

I have read, with humor, all the clamor the last few years about how “Bush and Cheney trampled all over the constitution”. Since you folks seem to sound like you know what you are talking about, please, detail to me which articles they supposedly “trampled over”. Also, please explain why, if this was so, your liberal led congress has done nothing, your liberal led courts have done nothing, and our liberal led media has done nothing? Could it be you don’t know what you are talking about, and Bush and Cheney have been within their legal rights all the time? I tend to believe that more than your liberal ravings, with no facts. So please, it’s getting old, time to “move on”.
I will be interested in seeing how you handle it when your boy actually starts trashing the constitution. Hmm?

By: Qalam96

Qalam96 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:07:15 +0000

The Saxbe case, in 1973, is not the first. The precedent was established in 1903 and has NEVER been successfully challenged.

The 1903 case also involved a senator being named secretary of State. The way this Constitutional provision has been applied in the past is explained on a .gov site:

In 1909, after having increased the salary of the Secretary of
State,(459) Congress reduced it to the former figure so that a Member of the Senate at the time the increase was voted would be eligible for that office.(460)

459 34 Stat. 948 (1907).
460 35 Stat. 626 (1909). Congress followed this precedent when the President wished to appoint a Senator as Attorney General and the salary had been increased pursuant to a process under which Congress did not need to vote to approve but could vote to disapprove. The salary was temporarily reduced to its previous level. 87 Stat. 697 (1975). See also 89 Stat. 1108 (1975) (reducing the salary of a member of the Federal Maritime Commission in order to qualify a Representative).

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf

Move on folks; nothing to see here.

By: Angie

Angie — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:48:00 +0000

You’re all just wasting your breath. They will do whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want, and we will pay for it (literally and metaphorically) because we continue to willingly elect them into office without holding them accountable.

It’s our own fault. QED.

By: Gekkobear

Gekkobear — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:56:02 +0000

Whoops, that quote was from Beezo, not abel.

And HStewart, the last 7 years? Really? So the 10th Amendment was secure for the past 50 is your claim?

And your defense is “they violated parts of the Constitution, so we get to crap on it as well”? Is that really the ground you want?

You didn’t want Bush to stop violating the Constitution to defend the Constitution, you just wanted that power for your side and not the other side?

So that’s your moral high ground; you wanted your guy to be the one violating the Constitution and damaging the law of the land for political gain… good to know where you stand.

By: HStewart

HStewart — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:08:01 +0000

All the damage that’s been done to the Constitution during the last seven years, and people have the cohones to raise this? Forgive me if I want to puke.

By: I concur « Cadillac Tight

I concur « Cadillac Tight — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:26:26 +0000

[...] The last Congress improved cabinet pay. Ergo, Clinton cannot serve, nor any other Senator. [...]