• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hillary-Obama To Violate The Constitution?

Mike

Well-known member
Would appointing Hillary violate the Constitution?posted at 8:06 am on November 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly According to MS-NBC, appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would cause Barack Obama to violate the Constitution. Does this mean that the Impeach Obama movement has its smoking gun?
If President-elect Barack Obama nominates Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, many legal scholars believe it would be the former law professor’s first violation of the Constitution as president.
Why? Because the Constitution forbids the appointment of members of Congress to administration jobs if the salary of the job they’d take was raised while they were in Congress. (Article I, Section 6: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office … the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” Emoluments meaning salaries and benefits.)
Congress voted a salary increase for the Secretary of State while Hillary Clinton served in the Senate. Technically speaking, no member of Congress in that session would be constitutionally able to serve in any executive appointments. Picking Hillary would violate one of the original tenets the founders included.
However, Obama would be far from the first President to run afoul of this restriction. Nixon appointed William Saxbe to be Attorney General under similar circumstance, while Jimmy Carter appointed Ed Muskie to the same position Hillary will fill. Her husband appointed Lloyd Bentsen to run Treasury in the last such instance. No one ever proposed impeachment or a disqualification for these appointments, all of whom took their offices without much controversy at all.
Still, the intent of the founders is clear, and not something to shrug off so lightly. They wanted to keep Congress from creating cushy sinecures for them to occupy when a friendly President took office. The attraction of power, cash, and cronyism would lead to corruption and a permanent political class that would cease answering to the electorate. The question should get asked, or Congress should amend the Constitution if no one wants to enforce that restriction any longer.
 

fff

Well-known member
Well, let's see: Taft nominated Knox as Sec of State and Senate recinded the pay raise so he was able to serve.

Then Nixon nominated Saxbe and persuaded Congress to lower Saxbe's salary to the pre-1969 level, and he could serve.

And Nixon also appointed then-Cong. Donald Rumsfeld to serve as director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Rumsfeld declined a salary for that position (which had been raised), and instead took the raised salary as an "assistant to the President.

Obviously this "problem" has occurred before and been worked around. It can be done, especially with a willing Congress. A better idea would be to have a bill ready for Obama to sign when he's worn in that will fix the problem for future presidents.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Obviously this "problem" has occurred before and been worked around. It can be done, especially with a willing Congress. A better idea would be to have a bill ready for Obama to sign when he's worn in that will fix the problem for future presidents.

Why not just follow the rules of the Constitution, seems pretty simple to me! :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Obviously this "problem" has occurred before and been worked around. It can be done, especially with a willing Congress. A better idea would be to have a bill ready for Obama to sign when he's worn in that will fix the problem for future presidents.

Why not just follow the rules of the Constitution, seems pretty simple to me! :roll:

That makes me chuckle...We have a current President that is recognized by Liberal and Conservatives both as having done more to violate and usurp the Constitution- and throw out the rule of law- than any other President in modern history (Even Nixon- in his state of paranoia- recognized the Constitution)... And during this whole regimes reign- few on here would say a word to defend the Constitution- and the rule of law-- and challenge their Champion-- but now that Obama/Dems are in control-- everyone is on this hardline Constitutional kick.... Plumb laughable :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Obviously this "problem" has occurred before and been worked around. It can be done, especially with a willing Congress. A better idea would be to have a bill ready for Obama to sign when he's worn in that will fix the problem for future presidents.

Why not just follow the rules of the Constitution, seems pretty simple to me! :roll:

That makes me chuckle...We have a current President that is recognized by Liberal and Conservatives both as having done more to violate and usurp the Constitution- and throw out the rule of law- than any other President in modern history (Even Nixon- in his state of paranoia- recognized the Constitution)... And during this whole regimes reign- few on here would say a word to defend the Constitution- and the rule of law-- and challenge their Champion-- but now that Obama/Dems are in control-- everyone is on this hardline Constitutional kick.... Plumb laughable :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:

I've heard some of these claims but never any specifics. When and where did GW do this and what part of the constitution did he violate?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Obviously this "problem" has occurred before and been worked around. It can be done, especially with a willing Congress. A better idea would be to have a bill ready for Obama to sign when he's worn in that will fix the problem for future presidents.

Why not just follow the rules of the Constitution, seems pretty simple to me! :roll:

That makes me chuckle...We have a current President that is recognized by Liberal and Conservatives both as having done more to violate and usurp the Constitution- and throw out the rule of law- than any other President in modern history (Even Nixon- in his state of paranoia- recognized the Constitution)... And during this whole regimes reign- few on here would say a word to defend the Constitution- and the rule of law-- and challenge their Champion-- but now that Obama/Dems are in control-- everyone is on this hardline Constitutional kick.... Plumb laughable :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:

And we have those who got after Bush for violating the Constitiution (which I agree with), but make excuses for Obama (which I don't understand). I guess it isn't really about the Constitition, is it?
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Why not just follow the rules of the Constitution, seems pretty simple to me! :roll:

That makes me chuckle...We have a current President that is recognized by Liberal and Conservatives both as having done more to violate and usurp the Constitution- and throw out the rule of law- than any other President in modern history (Even Nixon- in his state of paranoia- recognized the Constitution)... And during this whole regimes reign- few on here would say a word to defend the Constitution- and the rule of law-- and challenge their Champion-- but now that Obama/Dems are in control-- everyone is on this hardline Constitutional kick.... Plumb laughable :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:

And we have those who got after Bush for violating the Constitiution (which I agree with), but make excuses for Obama (which I don't understand). I guess it isn't really about the Constitition, is it?

If you read the law, it's obvious that the Founding Fathers were aiming to stop a Senator/Congressman from creating a job or raising a salary, then benefiting from that increase in pay by taking the job. The Clintons are millionaires many times over. If she becomes Sec of State it won't be because of the pay. :roll:

Nixon and Taft both appointed people within the Constitutional requirements. They just had to adjust the salaries. Obama can do the same thing.
 

fff

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Why not just follow the rules of the Constitution, seems pretty simple to me! :roll:

That makes me chuckle...We have a current President that is recognized by Liberal and Conservatives both as having done more to violate and usurp the Constitution- and throw out the rule of law- than any other President in modern history (Even Nixon- in his state of paranoia- recognized the Constitution)... And during this whole regimes reign- few on here would say a word to defend the Constitution- and the rule of law-- and challenge their Champion-- but now that Obama/Dems are in control-- everyone is on this hardline Constitutional kick.... Plumb laughable :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:

I've heard some of these claims but never any specifics. When and where did GW do this and what part of the constitution did he violate?

In what might be the most important decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States during the Bush Administration, five justices ruled in Boumedienne v. Bush on Thursday, June 12, that the United States government did not have the right to suspend habeas corpus, or legal due process.

The government effectively did this through the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a legal measure meant to bolster an original executive order signed shortly after September 11, 2001, that gave federal authorities the power to detain suspected enemy operatives indefinitely without recourse to legal process and a trial. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, the passage of which was led by Sen. John McCain, specifically denied Guantanamo detainees the right to petition federal courts on grounds of habeas corpus.

In a scathing rebuttal of Bush administration policy, the Supreme Court maintained that the detainees had the same basic rights as anyone held in custody by officials of the United States. In its 70-page decision, the Court noted: "Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . "

Antonin Scalia, vehemently opposed to the ruling, wrote in his dissent that the decision would "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" because it would make the War on Terror "harder on us."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/819243/supreme_court_rules_against_bush_administration.html?cat=17

Before you start screaming about non-Americans being given American rights, Bush also held American citizens without attorneys or charges for years.

Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was accused of intending to set off a radioactive “dirty bomb” in an American city. He was denied due process and the protection of habeas corpus. He was held for years under harsh conditions that brought about “essentially the destruction of a human being’s mind,” according to Dr. Angela Hegarty, a psychiatrist who spent 22 hours examining Padilla.

More: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/01/padilla-trial-highlights-bush.php

And you might want to look at this:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/020307.html
 
Top