# Should Sestak Squeal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604 "2010-05-24T18:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/241 "2010-06-01T15:38:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > This thread’s still going? Sheesh. There’s no stopping the power of wingnut hysteria. Ratchet that back. Do not make personal attacks on other posters. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/242 "2010-06-02T04:34:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > He was offered a non-paying position which he was not eligible for. > > And, for like a fifteen hundredth time, the law requires “political activity” in exchange for something of value. . The law does not specify value, that is something that was injected into this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/243 "2010-06-02T10:35:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The law does not specify value, that is something that was injected into this thread. The law you quoted speaks of the exchange of political activity for employment or “other benefit.” I don’t know what kind of benefit has zero value. Conversely, I don’t know what thing of value isn’t a benefit. I’m glad to see you keep coming up with new ways to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/244 "2010-06-02T11:58:07Z")
**Magiver** : Let’s assume that you’re right – the law’s plain language forbids the act that the President committed. Would you care to address my comment that the President has an Article II power to appoint, and that Congress cannot pass a statute that limits this power? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/245 "2010-06-02T14:01:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The salient information was that nothing improper took place. He answered that question promptly, and that’s all the public was entitled to know. > > Even if Sestak had been offered a job, that’s still NOT ILLEGAL, so what crime are trying to insinuate was committed? Who answered what promptly? The WH memo in response to the question at the press conference? They had that ready because they had refused to answer the question for months. I’m glad you are clear on what we have the right to know and I trust you will apply your standard consistently in the future. I don’t much care about the legalities… Obama took it up a couple notches in referring to proprieties and I’d like to get the full story. Maybe Woodward will write a book in a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/246 "2010-06-02T14:38:18Z")
You’ve already gotten the full story, and Obama didn’t take anything “up a few notches,” he just dismissed any inane suggestions that he’d done anything improper. This thread has had more legs than the story itself did. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/247 "2010-06-02T21:41:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The law you quoted speaks of the exchange of political activity for employment or “other benefit.” I don’t know what kind of benefit has zero value. Conversely, I don’t know what thing of value isn’t a benefit. The concept of value wasn’t stated in the law. It takes out any ambiguity of the act. As it is written, there are no Clintonion definitions of words to try to wriggle out of. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m glad to see you keep coming up with new ways to be wrong. I referred to a clearly written law. You have not countered it with a reasoned argument. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/248 "2010-06-02T21:48:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Magiver** : > > Let’s assume that you’re right – the law’s plain language forbids the act that the President committed. > > Would you care to address my comment that the President has an Article II power to appoint, and that Congress cannot pass a statute that limits this power? That doesn’t supersede the law that prevents the use of appointment as part of an exchange of services. It addresses those who make the claim that the position wasn’t within his power to creat and therefore ANOTHER position was offered. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/249 "2010-06-02T23:01:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The concept of value wasn’t stated in the law. It takes out any ambiguity of the act. As it is written, there are no Clintonion definitions of words to try to wriggle out of. > > I referred to a clearly written law. You have not countered it with a reasoned argument. Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/250 "2010-06-03T12:24:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’ve already gotten the full story, and Obama didn’t take anything “up a few notches,” he just dismissed any inane suggestions that he’d done anything improper. > > This thread has had more legs than the story itself did. Well at least you aren’t sticking with the “prompt” part of your claims. Did O say he didn’t do anything improper or nothing was improper? Full story? How can you even say something like that? Intellectually dishonest perhaps?? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/251 "2010-06-03T13:13:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That doesn’t supersede the law that prevents the use of appointment as part of an exchange of services. It addresses those who make the claim that the position wasn’t within his power to creat and therefore ANOTHER position was offered. I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here. Or maybe you didn’t follow what I was saying. I was saying that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States, generally without limitation. The limitations that exist to that power are constitutionally derived. For example, Congress could not make a law limiting Presidential appointments to persons under 65 years of age. In the same way, Congress can’t make a law forbidding the President from offering a Presidential appointment to a person who is running for office, or who is currently in office. And the Constitution would compel such a person to resign, or drop out, since it mandates that no one may simultaneously be a Presidential appointee and a sitting Congressman. So the laws you have been discussing cannot apply to the President, because his power is constitutionally derived. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/252 "2010-06-03T14:49:23Z")
Looks like the administration also offered Romanoff a choice of three jobs if he decided not to run. Well, they suggested that maybe he might have a job if perhaps he decided that maybe he wouldn’t run (wink wink)! > **[Romanoff confirms White House job discussions](https://www.denverpost.com/2010/06/02/romanoff-confirms-white-house-job-discussions/)** > > Romanoff confirms White House job discussions My guess is the administration did just enough to skirt the law but it is public opinion that matters. The trial will be the 2010 and 2012 elections. As I stated earlier the republicans would never impeach Obama over this unless it is an obvious violation of the law, and even then I doubt they would act on this. All they have to do is keep the story alive. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/253 "2010-06-03T14:53:14Z")
There is no story. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/254 "2010-06-03T14:54:54Z")
They weren’t “skirting” any law, by the way. It is not illegal for a President to offer somebody a job not to run for office, and all Presidents have done it, including St. Ronnie. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/255 "2010-06-03T14:56:49Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > All they have to do is keep the story alive. [Washington, June 3] White House sources confirmed again today that the President exercised his powers under Article II of the United States Constitution. Yes, what a story! ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/256 "2010-06-03T16:08:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was saying that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States, generally without limitation. The limitations that exist to that power are constitutionally derived. For example, Congress could not make a law limiting Presidential appointments to persons under 65 years of age. In the same way, Congress can’t make a law forbidding the President from offering a Presidential appointment to a person who is running for office, or who is currently in office. And the Constitution would compel such a person to resign, or drop out, since it mandates that no one may simultaneously be a Presidential appointee and a sitting Congressman. Bricker, is there _any_ restriction you could envision that is not constitutionally derived? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/257 "2010-06-03T16:21:25Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Bricker, is there _any_ restriction you could envision that is not constitutionally derived? With respect to appointments? No. Congress has the reins anyway: they define which positions do and do not require “advice and consent” from the Senate. Any restrictions they wish to impose can be done through that method. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/258 "2010-06-03T16:23:45Z")
Okay. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/259 "2010-06-03T16:28:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here. > > Or maybe you didn’t follow what I was saying. > > I was saying that the President has the power to appoint officers of the United States, generally without limitation. The limitations that exist to that power are constitutionally derived. For example, Congress could not make a law limiting Presidential appointments to persons under 65 years of age. In the same way, Congress can’t make a law forbidding the President from offering a Presidential appointment to a person who is running for office, or who is currently in office. And the Constitution would compel such a person to resign, or drop out, since it mandates that no one may simultaneously be a Presidential appointee and a sitting Congressman. > > So the laws you have been discussing cannot apply to the President, because his power is constitutionally derived. Are you suggesting the President can sell jobs as long as they aren’t specifically prescribed by Congress? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/260 "2010-06-03T16:31:01Z")
Offering someone a job if they don’t run for something else is not “selling” it, but, as a matter of fact, yes, the President can make me Secretary of Defense in exchange for guitar lessons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=14)