MSNBC’s Pete Williams reportsthat Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution would block Hillary from being Sec. of State because, as a Senator, she voted to increase the salary of the position.
Previous administrations have gotten around this by asking Congress to reduce to the Cabinet officers’ salaries to their former levels, but Williams says that wouldn’t go over well in a court case.
So, who will be the first to call for Obama’s impeachment for violating the Constitution?
Will they impeach the Senate for approving her for the position, too?
Broken link.
And why is this case different?
He didn’t say this one is different, just that courts don’t tend to look favorably on taxpayer grievance suits. Bizarre if true. But there you are.
Do note that Obama hasn’t nominated anyone for anything yet, formally (except possibly his own staff, and even there I’m not sure), and this sort of thing has happened before.
She’ll forfeit some of her salary, then. I doubt this would get challenged or that she’d be rejected (or passed over for the nomination) for this reason.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with whether she forfeits salary or salary is adjusted back. The point is that the salary was adjusted up when she was a Senator, and the Constitution says she can’t be appointed to the office. Is that what they call “strict constructionism”?
Try this one and click on the Video link.
Of the ilk that’ll go as far with a judge as this blast from the past:
Texans challenge Cheney’s residency status
Should we also impeach any member of Congress who writes a law which the Supreme Court later overturns on Constitutional grounds?
Just because the Constitution says “You’re not allowed to do what you just did,” doesn’t make it a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
As I understood it, the way this has been dealt with before at both federal and state levels (what, are you telling me this is the first time **ever **a sitting MoC has been appointed to a position they voted about?) has been for the appointee to forfeit the raise for the duration of their normal term (until 2012 in this case). Of course this means that all along everyione has said never mind the plain text, construe based on original intent (that congressmen not create sinecures for themselves).
The Clintons earn millions of dollars per year from books/speeches/investments/etceteras. The salary of a state senator is $170,000, the salary of Secretary of State is $190,000. I don’t think anyone really believes she’s that greedy for the extra $20,000, and her appointment clearly does not violate the spirit of the law even if there is a legal technicality, plus if it’s ever been done before the precedent should cover her as well.
This is probably being championed by the same people who claimed that because the doctor didn’t dot the i in his name on Obama’s birth certificate then it must mean Obama was born in Havana to Svetlana Stalin and a communist Angolan warlord.
nitpick: HRC is a US Senator. I’m sure the salary for a state senator is a lot lower.
I might. Please let me know when he violates the constitution.
It’s not even that much. The salary of the Secretary of State was raised from $183,500 to $191,300 during Clinton’s term in office - which means she would have to forego $7800 in order to stay at the salary that existed before her current term.
Wikipedia lists some previous Senators who were not barred from taking a new position by this article: Lloyd Bentsen, Hugo Black, Philander Knox, Edmund Muskie, and William Saxbe. But there was a group of Senators who opposed Bentsen’s appointment and Orrin Hatch’s name was withdrawn for a Supreme Court nomination over this.
The article I read said that they were able to work around the same problem with another person previously (Saxbe) by creating a loophole. I was surprised that the surpreme court allowed it given it was clearly done to wriggle past what the constitution dictates. I won’t be surprised if it’s done again.
It won’t come up. She’s not taking the job.
You heard it here first. 
Do you think the rumors are true (i.e. that she’s really going to star with Bill and Chelsea in “LOVING HISTORY: THE CLINTON TRIO SING SONGS OF HOPE” at that theater Hooters Hotel & Casino is talking about building for her)?
My inside information suggests Circus Circus.
It’s a minor thing, and I agree that the salary reduction addresses the spirit of the law, but I still don’t like it. I don’t think the words of the Constitution are something that should be that easy to get around.
If the Constitution says she can’t serve then either she shouldn’t serve or an amendment should be passed.