Good point. Completely sabotage the incoming administration in one stroke of the pen.
A Conservative watchdog group worriedabout protecting the integrity of the Constitution. Since when?
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.
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.
Hillary Clinton Will Make $4,700 Less Per Year Than Condoleezza Rice She will have to slave along at the old salary . It has been done before .
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…
So if you’re scoring at home, that’s Binding Words 1, Common Sense 0. 
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.
anytime before January 20, 2001.
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.
Except for all the pointlessness and wasted time, yes. Why would he want to do that, again?
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.
Are we having a contest for making up outlandish reasons she was nominated? This would be stupid, and the court isn’t getting involved.
And that, in many cases, will not be an unreasonable belief.
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.
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 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.
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.
I agree that was their intent, but it isn’t what the text says.