|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Nov 30, 2008 13:48:54 GMT -5
On Monday a former University of Chicago constitutional law lecturer could violate the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 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." Bush raised the emoluments for the Secretary of State through an executive order during the time Clinton was a Senator. Here's an interesting post on a very good law blog: volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227562708Politico notes that the nomination has been done before: www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Unconstitutional_like_Bentsen.html?showallOf course, there are questions about who would have standing to challenge the appointment, but is there any fix to this Constitutional problem? ON EDIT: Re-reading the text of the clause, the tongue-in-cheek answer seems obvious - the Emoluments Clause uses a male pronoun. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Nov 30, 2008 18:18:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Nov 30, 2008 20:44:38 GMT -5
Possibly, that would still seem to violate the clause though because the text because the emoluments of the position increased when Hillary was a Senator, and downgrading the pay of the position doesn't fix that problem. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 1, 2008 10:26:45 GMT -5
Those Clintons never make anything easy, do they? ;D
I certainly understand the spirit of the clause, and the reason for it, but I'd have to imagine there is a reasonable solution to this, Saxbe or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Dec 1, 2008 12:04:48 GMT -5
Without reading a single thing on the subject (because right now, I'm bogged down in outlining for Corporations--the worst class I've ever taken):
The obvious intent here seemingly was to prevent Reps and Senators from jacking up pay for a job and then assuming the job themselves. I think the fact that the raise was given via Executive Order makes a huge difference here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 1, 2008 17:05:24 GMT -5
Agree with Strummer's reasoning, and St Pete's standing question (less so the male pronoun quip  . Disagree with strummer's hate for Corps. One of my favorite courses. The instructor makes ALL the difference in that class (and we focused a lot on social responsibility and securities law, which is a always fun). |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Dec 1, 2008 18:40:45 GMT -5
You don't need any legal reasoning, you can just ignore it. Even if someone has standing (who? Richardson?), what would SCOTUS ultimately decide? That HRC can't be SecState? You've got to be joking. Unless of course there's some kind of prevailing international consensus emerging about increasing emoluments with respect to cabinet appointments that I'm blissfully unaware of :-p
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 1, 2008 19:11:04 GMT -5
The Constitution never applies to the Clintons.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 1, 2008 19:26:55 GMT -5
The Constitution never applies to the Clintons. Yes, because when I think of administrations that usurped the Constitution, Bill Clinton's leaps immediately to mind. As opposed to the current one, which has basically ignored the fourth amendment. Ye gods. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 1, 2008 22:29:02 GMT -5
Disagree with strummer's hate for Corps. One of my favorite courses. The instructor makes ALL the difference in that class (and we focused a lot on social responsibility and securities law, which is a always fun). That must have been a short class. Corporations have no social responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Dec 1, 2008 23:35:08 GMT -5
Disagree with strummer's hate for Corps. One of my favorite courses. The instructor makes ALL the difference in that class (and we focused a lot on social responsibility and securities law, which is a always fun). That must have been a short class. Corporations have no social responsibility. Don't tell that to my Prof. He'll spend the next 2 hours starting sentences, rethinking his idea mid-sentence, and then starting over with a new thought until you're so thoroughly confused you just don't care anymore. |
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,300
|
Post by royski on Dec 8, 2008 18:43:22 GMT -5
The Constitution never applies to the Clintons. Yes, because when I think of administrations that usurped the Constitution, Bill Clinton's leaps immediately to mind. As opposed to the current one, which has basically ignored the fourth amendment. Ye gods. And the 8th. And arguably the 5th and 6th. And if you apply the first clause of the 5th in order to justify the 6th and 8th, then you've got the 9th as well. Oh well, half isn't too bad. |
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Dec 12, 2008 2:03:16 GMT -5
im going to trust the judgment of the harvard and yale law grads at issue as having considered this issue and figured that it and the relevant fixes were discussed in advance of the appointment.
|
|
.
