U. S. Constitution, specifically, Article One, Section Six

[DStaub]

link (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/clinton-obama-2.html)

As pointed out by a number of bloggers in recent hours, including our eloquent friend Susan over at Wake Up America, there's a clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article One, Section Six) that prohibits senators (or representatives) from taking a civil office if the legislator has voted to increase the pay for that job.

"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."

A president-elect who's a former part-time constitutional law professor, even one without his BlackBerry, presumably is aware of this prohibition, obviously designed to prevent double-dipping and raising your own salary, which is only allowed in Wall Street banks.

And Obama surely knows of its historical precedents.U. S. Constitution, specifically, Article One, Section Six. Ignor it? What next? :eek:

[joseephuss]

The way I read it is that the person can't hold two jobs at once. Clinton will have to give up her Senate seat. That is and has been obvious. Same with Obama and Biden. Both will give up their places in the senate. McCain would have done the same had he been elected.

[masomenos]

There's nothing in that clause that prohibits Obama from serving as President. All it says is that no elected representative is allowed to be appointed to a government job which was created while they are still in office or which saw a pay increase while they were serving their elected term. Obviously the PotUS isn't a recently created position and the last pay increase was back in 2000. It wouldn't matter anyways because the President isn't an appointed position.

[ThaBigP]

There's nothing in that clause that prohibits Obama from serving as President. All it says is that no elected representative is allowed to be appointed to a government job which was created while they are still in office or which saw a pay increase while they were serving their elected term. Obviously the PotUS isn't a recently created position and the last pay increase was back in 2000. It wouldn't matter anyways because the President isn't an appointed position.

It's not in regards to Obama...but his appointment of Hillary Clinton to SecState. *She's* the one who cannot be appointed, per the Constitution.

[masomenos]

It's not in regards to Obama...but his appointment of Hillary Clinton to SecState. *She's* the one who cannot be appointed, per the Constitution.

Guess I should have read the linked article huh? :o:

[Aikbach]

Burn her! She's a witch!

[BrAinPaiNt]

Burn her! She's a witch!

You give good witches a bad name.

[DStaub]

It's not in regards to Obama...but his appointment of Hillary Clinton to SecState. *She's* the one who cannot be appointed, per the Constitution.
You got it! It has been done before.
Apparently, President Nixon ran into the same problem when he wanted to appoint Ohio's Republican Sen. William Saxbe as attorney general.

The solution back then, since dubbed the "Saxbe fix," was for Congress to pass another law (not without some outspoken dissent from Democratic senators, by the way) reducing the AG's pay so Saxbe wouldn't benefit financially from the higher salary he'd previously voted on.

Similar fixes occurred when President Jimmy Carter named Edmund Muskie secretary of State and H. Clinton's own husband Bill named Lloyd Bentsen to head Treasury.
We're not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn't say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said "Emoluments."

It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee's elected term. Period. Which it has.

[Aikbach]

You give good witches a bad name.Gotta burn somethin'

[Sasquatch]

Burn her! She's a witch!

Your accusation wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. Women from affluent and wealthy families were seldom denounced as witches. It was always women who inhabited the margins of society--widows, beggars, old maids--who were most vulnerable to the charge.

Might I suggest 'terrorist' which is a more much inclusive category that can be applied to almost any situation?

[Aikbach]

Your accusation wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. Women from affluent and wealthy families were seldom denounced as witches. It was always women who inhabited the margins of society--widows, beggars, old maids--who were most vulnerable to the charge.

Might I suggest 'terrorist' which is a more much inclusive category that can be applied to almost any situation?I think the name Clinton is an anathema burden to carry as it is.

[zrinkill]

Your accusation wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. Women from affluent and wealthy families were seldom denounced as witches. It was always women who inhabited the margins of society--widows, beggars, old maids--who were most vulnerable to the charge.

Might I suggest 'terrorist' which is a more much inclusive category that can be applied to almost any situation?

Warmonger works well in those situations as well.

[NinePointOh]

Since the authors already admit that they're not lawyers, they should probably stop trying to be.

This really isn't an issue whatsoever. As the article specifically states, three of the last seven US presidents ran into it. All Congress has to do, as has been done each time in the past, is lower the salary back to what it was before.

Ignor it?

Why ignore it when they can comply fully and still nominate her?

[Aikbach]

Since the authors already admit that they're not lawyers, they should probably stop trying to be.

This really isn't an issue whatsoever. As the article specifically states, three of the last seven US presidents ran into it. All Congress has to do, as has been done each time in the past, is lower the salary back to what it was before.



Why ignore it when they can comply fully and still nominate her?In fairness I think it can be rightfully argued that three of the last seven administrations circumvented the constitution with aide form congress by appointing candidates that were disqualified by Article 1 Section 6.

[theogt]

"Emoluments." Now there's a handy word to know.

[Yeagermeister]

Throw her in the lake. If she floats she's a witch. If she sinks she innocent.

[Aikbach]

Throw her in the lake. If she floats she's a witch. If she sinks she innocent.The woman is buoyant as a battle ship, those cankles are floatation devices enough.

[Yeagermeister]

The woman is buoyant as a battle ship, those cankles are floatation devices enough.

:lmao2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

The woman is buoyant as a battle ship, those cankles are floatation devices enough.

:laugh2: cankles, just one of those words that makes you laugh.

[Aikbach]

I think the healing has begun as bi-partisan support for "No, not Hillary" seems to be high.:)

[Yeagermeister]

yp_l5ntikaU

[arglebargle]

Does the intent of the original writers of the Constitution matter here? Anyone know off hand what the actual intent of that clause was?

[Aikbach]

Does the intent of the original writers of the Constitution matter here? Anyone know off hand what the actual intent of that clause was?To keep people from giving themselves pay raises by perking up jobs they knew they would be appointed to or seek and to make sure no one double dipped into two branches of government and held multiple offices.

[arglebargle]

That's what I thought it might be. Thanks!

[trickblue]

Does the intent of the original writers of the Constitution matter here?

No... it hasn't mattered in this country for well over a century...

[arglebargle]

Ooh, I gave you the great set up line, didn't I.....

[DStaub]

Does the intent of the original writers of the Constitution matter here? http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/383/images/DIA_shred.jpgIt has been ignored for years.

[CowboyPrincess]

You give good witches a bad name.

You tell em'

Thanks for having my back there BP :laugh2:

[CowboyPrincess]

Your accusation wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. Women from affluent and wealthy families were seldom denounced as witches. It was always women who inhabited the margins of society--widows, beggars, old maids--who were most vulnerable to the charge.

Might I suggest 'terrorist' which is a more much inclusive category that can be applied to almost any situation?

DANG! I am a witch!!!



Put down those matches!

[CanadianCowboyFan]

It's not in regards to Obama...but his appointment of Hillary Clinton to SecState. *She's* the one who cannot be appointed, per the Constitution.

her appointment won't take effect until the new year, she will have resigned her seat by then

[masomenos]

Does the intent of the original writers of the Constitution matter here? Anyone know off hand what the actual intent of that clause was?

I don't think that the intent of the article is betrayed by the appointment of Clinton. That clause was written into the Constitution to prevent politicians from creating jobs for themselves just so they, or their friends, could earn more money. While the appointment does go against the verbiage of the Constitution, I don't think that it runs contrary to the original intent.

[NinePointOh]

Does the intent of the original writers of the Constitution matter here? Anyone know off hand what the actual intent of that clause was?

Of course it matters. The intent of the restriction is not violated whatsoever with the Saxbe fix. The strictest interpretation of the letter of the law, which stretches further than the intent, is what would be violated. Even Constitutional law professor Michael Paulsen, one of the most prominent voices arguing that the Saxbe fix is unconstitutional, says (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/25/1688640.aspx), "The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose."

As has been mentioned, the original intent of the restriction is to prevent members of Congress from conspiring to increase the salary of certain offices and then reap the benefits by taking those offices for themselves. If the salary of the SecState position is rolled back to it's previous level, then Hillary wouldn't reap the financial benefits of the pay raise by any stretch of the imagination. The corruption which the article was intended to prevent would be effectively prevented by forcing her to accept a lower salary. And that's not even touching on the fact that Hillary herself didn't even vote for the pay raise in question.

The original intent was never to categorically ban all Congressmen from being appointed -- in fact, James Madison's original proposal was a simple one-year ban from taking the office, not even a permanent one.

The only way this would be unconstitutional is if we ignore the actual purpose of the article and instead look only at the strictest possible view of the letter of the law. But in so doing, you'd have to throw out the whole original intent thing and a century worth of precedent (the practice didn't start with Saxbe -- it was used long before that, too).

[trickblue]

Ooh, I gave you the great set up line, didn't I.....

Thanks for the sack Mr. Favre...

- Michael Strahan... :D

[JBond]

Throw her in the lake. If she floats she's a witch. If she sinks she innocent.

Isn't there a duck involved and a scale?


I love Monty Python. The Holy Grail is one of my all time favorite movies.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Isn't there a duck involved and a scale?


I love Monty Python. The Holy Grail is one of my all time favorite movies.

Monty Python is great.

Bring out your dead and the guy with his mother in law.:laugh2:

On a related note.

Not sure if you have seen the movie Yellowbeard.

It is not an official monty python movie but it has many characters from monty python and I love it. Some really funny lines in that movie as well.