I disagree. That clause is probably intended to avoid conflicts of interest and greed, and none exists here. If Obama thinks Hillary is the best available Secretary of State, why should he be forced to choose someone else because of a 4 percent raise that Clinton did not think was going to apply to her? I think a workaround is perfectly acceptable and sensible here.
Why? Because the constitution clearly states it is not to be done. If you don’t like that, and if we think it’s wrong, then it should be easy to pass an amendment to correct it. Of course, the constitution does say “he”, and Hillary is a “she”, so maybe there is a workaround… 
Because the Constitution explicitly says that he has to. Constitutional barriers should be more than a mild inconvenience.
If we’re going by a strict reading of the words of the constitution, that clause says…No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected,…
Hillary Clinton is not a he so it clearly doesn’t apply to her. 
Not a lawyer but it seems that if she is appointed to the office as it existed at the beginning of her current senate term (same responsibilty, old salary), it isn’t really violating anything. That is, I’ve heard much less twisted logic accepted as correct legal interpretation.
Was there a vote to increase the salary or is the salary just increasing as part of a CPI change?
Ooh! Me! Me first!
Let’s ride him out of town on a rail! Throw the rascals out of Washington! YARRR!
24 replies and nobody else said it. w00t!
There was a vote, and she voted yes. It is her yes vote that caused this Constitutional crisis.
There truly is no limit upon Clinton drama. Bill and Hillary are the binary black holes of human comedy and tragedy.
Actually, there is no Constitutional crisis until Obama sends her nomination to the Senate. (Even then there may be no crisis if they simply refrain from giving Consent based on a probable conflict with the Constitution.)
I don’t think anyone in this thread is calling it a “crisis”. It’s a clear violation of the plain text of the constitution (AFAICT), but is easily correctable. We should correct the situation instead of allowing a violation to stand. That is all.
I’ve been trying to find the date of the vote. Do you happen to have it?
It wasn’t a vote, it was an Execuctive Order by the President.
The order cites a specific law for each pay schedule.
Ah, interesting. So the issue isn’t that Clinton is involved in raising the salary, it’s that she was a Senator while the change was made. Interesting. I don’t understand the reasoning behind that rule and I still think it should be possible to work around it.
Here’s the specific order- look under the first heading, for the Executive. I don’t see a law here, as opposed to an executive order, but maybe I’m not familiar enough with the language used in these types of things.
Yes, in their ongoing quest to destroy America, Hillary Clinton voted for a law that tied state department salaries to the cost-of-living index. Pure evil. Is there no depth to which those Clintons won’t sink?
Supposedly, it doesn’t matter. There is nothing in the constitution about a vote. Link.Also:
The reason I’d like to find the date of the vote is that if it was during her first term, I think she’s OK. “during the time for which he was elected,” seems to cover that.
Oh, I realize that. Just trying to help out Frank with his inquiries.
If the relevant law is 5 U.S.C. 5312 5318, the law in question appears to have been passed in November 2003, during her previous term.
I think that’s obviously an oversight. The point of it would be to prevent a Representative or Senator from creating a cushy and/or well-paid job for themselves - to prevent corruption, in other words.
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?
But, yes, the plain words agree with you, despite my attempt at creating a penumbra.
OK, well, that takes care of that, in my opinion anyway. I think the language is clear that the appointment cannot take place during the term in which such a law was passed. Since she’s been reelected since then, she can be appointed.