# Hillary can't be Secretary of State? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2008, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485 "2008-11-25T21:52:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/61 "2008-12-12T08:06:02Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Otherwise, what is to stop an outgoing President from increasing all salaries by $1 a year on January 19th, thereby preventing all current Congressmen from going to a job in the new administration? Good point. Completely sabotage the incoming administration in one stroke of the pen. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/62 "2008-12-12T16:28:36Z")
A Conservative watchdog group worriedabout protecting the integrity of the Constitution. Since when? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/63 "2008-12-12T16:43:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I noticed that nobody has posted the article under discussion:I don’t think anyone’s disputing that the office of Secretary of State is a civil office or that its emoluments were increased during Senator Clinton’s current term. The question is how absolute the ban is. My contention is that past precedent has been Senators can serve in the office is they renounce the emoluments that were added during their term; in such a case the emoluments have therefore not increased as far as that individual is concerned. I listed five Senators above who have done this. Can anyone present a reason why Clinton should be treated differently than these past Senators? The phrase “during such time” can be interpreted to mean “at any moment during such time” or “across the duration of such time from beginning to end”. Given those precedents, and the fact that the clear purpose of the amendment (to prevent politicians from creating sinecures for themselves) is served perfectly well by either interpretation, I expect the Court to rule in favor of the latter interpretation if the matter comes before it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2008, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/64 "2008-12-13T17:31:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Otherwise, what is to stop an outgoing President from increasing all salaries by $1 a year on January 19th, thereby preventing all current Congressmen from going to a job in the new administration? I don’t think the President has the power to change any salaries on his own authority. They’re set by Congress. The only reason Bush was able to raise the Secretary of State’s salary by Executive Order in this particular case was because Congress had already passed a law directing him to make cost-of-living adjustments each year. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/65 "2008-12-14T16:57:29Z")
[Hillary Clinton Will Make $4,700 Less Per Year Than Condoleezza Rice](http://wonkette.com/404900/hillary-clinton-will-make-4700-less-per-year-than-condoleezza-rice#more-404900) She will have to slave along at the old salary . It has been done before . ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/66 "2008-12-14T17:45:38Z")
[QUOTE=The Constitution] 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… [/QUOTE] So, even if Congress recently reduced the SOS salary to pre-Hillary levels, the fact remains that the “emoluments” of that office “have been increased” during the time “for which (s)he was elected”, no? So, she is ineligible. Does it matter that they were subsequently decreased? The constitution makes no mention of that. Words mean things and we should be bound by them.. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/67 "2008-12-15T14:56:24Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Does it matter that they were subsequently decreased? The constitution makes no mention of that. Words mean things and we should be bound by them.. So if you’re scoring at home, that’s Binding Words 1, Common Sense 0. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/68 "2008-12-15T16:17:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Can anyone present a reason why Clinton should be treated differently than these past Senators? Yeah, because of the divisiveness and hostility that now exists between the political parties. The Supreme Court, if asked to rule on this, would rule against the Democrats if the argument was whether the sun comes up in the east. Precedent has little or no meaning before the present Court. Hence, of course they’d treat Ms Clinton different – she’s from the wrong party. Sad, but I think that’s the situation. Good thing that Bush is too stupid to think about the $1 increase. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/69 "2008-12-15T16:21:48Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > A Conservative watchdog group worriedabout protecting the integrity of the Constitution. Since when? anytime before January 20, 2001. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/70 "2008-12-15T18:07:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah, because of the divisiveness and hostility that now exists between the political parties. The Supreme Court, if asked to rule on this, would rule against the Democrats if the argument was whether the sun comes up in the east. Precedent has little or no meaning before the present Court. Hence, of course they’d treat Ms Clinton different – she’s from the wrong party. > > Sad, but I think that’s the situation. Maybe this is Obama’s plan. With the Democrats having both sides of Congress and the White House, the Supreme Court is the last holdout of the Republicans. Obama might be sending Clinton forth in order to prompt a Supreme Court vote against her. (It’s not like Obama has any deep love for Clinton.) Then Obama can bring a lot of attention to past examples of Saxbe fixes and call the Supreme Court a partisan unelected body. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/71 "2008-12-15T18:13:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Maybe this is Obama’s plan. With the Democrats having both sides of Congress and the White House, the Supreme Court is the last holdout of the Republicans. Obama might be sending Clinton forth in order to prompt a Supreme Court vote against her. (It’s not like Obama has any deep love for Clinton.) Then Obama can bring a lot of attention to past examples of Saxbe fixes and call the Supreme Court a partisan unelected body. !!! That would be . . . devilishly clever. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/72 "2008-12-15T18:15:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > !!! That would be . . . devilishly clever. Except for all the pointlessness and wasted time, yes. Why would he want to do that, again? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/73 "2008-12-15T18:52:44Z")
Obama probably suspects that the Court will be disagreeing with him on some decisions. He would undoubtedly prefer the public believe that these disagreements were based on partisan bias rather than on any inherent unconstitutionality. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/74 "2008-12-15T19:05:20Z")
Are we having a contest for making up outlandish reasons she was nominated? 😉 This would be stupid, and the court isn’t getting involved. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/75 "2008-12-15T19:50:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Obama probably suspects that the Court will be disagreeing with him on some decisions. He would undoubtedly prefer the public believe that these disagreements were based on partisan bias rather than on any inherent unconstitutionality. And that, in many cases, will not be an unreasonable belief. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/76 "2008-12-16T11:57:25Z")
> [@TWDuke](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Captain Carrot > > The rest of this I can get behind, but how is 10 Senators of any party less than 1/10th of the Senate? > > Math is hard. Apparently beyond your abilities. 10% of 100 is 10. Perhaps you were thinking “Congressmen” not “Senators”? :smack: As for the issue in the OP: IF Hillary Clinton was being “promoted” as it were to Secretary of State in the same term in which she voted upon a pay increase for the office, the Constitution would bar her way. Since that’s not what is happening, it’s not a bar. The framers clearly didn’t imagine that Congress would hand the power to increase salaries of cabinet offices over to the President. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/77 "2008-12-16T19:02:24Z")
So she’ll get paid at the same level as the salary was before she voted for any increase for her predecessor. The Framers’ intent - to keep Federal legislators from profiting by cushy executive offices that they had themselves voted raises for - is thus honored, and the Constitution is thus obeyed. I see no problem. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/78 "2008-12-16T19:08:50Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > …Orrin Hatch’s name was withdrawn for a Supreme Court nomination over this. I remember his name came up as a possibility for filling the vacancy which eventually went to Anthony Kennedy, and I remember this constitutional issue was mentioned at the time, but his name was never “withdrawn” for the simple reason that he was never actually nominated for the post. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/79 "2008-12-16T19:31:21Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Apparently beyond your abilities. 10% of 100 is 10. Perhaps you were thinking “Congressmen” not “Senators”? :smack: Um, 10 senators is not less than 1/10th of the senate. It is exactly 1/10th of the senate. So you seem to be correcting the wrong person. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485/80 "2008-12-16T20:38:13Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > So she’ll get paid at the same level as the salary was before she voted for any increase for her predecessor. The Framers’ intent - to keep Federal legislators from profiting by cushy executive offices that they had themselves voted raises for - is thus honored, and the Constitution is thus obeyed. I see no problem. I agree that was their intent, but it isn’t what the text says. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-cant-be-secretary-of-state/474485.md?page=5)