Sorry Hillary. You cannot be Secretary of State

[Wild Cobra]

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 reads:


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: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Who are these liberals thinking they can break the highest law of the land?

[balli]

Reading is fundamental jackass.


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

[balli]

Just like the second amendment. What is it with Republican morons being too retarded to read the second half of the fucking sentence?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Congrats, Annie Oakley!!!!!!

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Et tu, Hillary?
:wakeup

[florige]

Reading is fundamental jackass.




:lol

[doobs]

Reading is fundamental jackass.


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; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Indeed, jackass.

The fact that the Secretary of State's salary has increased since January 2007 disqualifies Hillary. That is, Hillary can't be Secretary of State unless the salary is reduced to its pre-2007 level (she was re-elected in 2006). Not a huge obstacle, really.

This has happened before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

Too bad the Democrats were bellyaching about the constitutionality of the so-called Saxbe fix!

[Winehole23]

This has happened before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

Too bad the Democrats were bellyaching about the constitutionality of the so-called Saxbe fix!It all depends on whose ox is gored. Be they conservative or liberal, more people argue from consequences to principles than the reverse.

As you say, doobs, the constitutional hurdle in this case is really no hurdle at all, except for the parrots who haven't thought things through all the way.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting.

I wonder if the same people belly-aching about this vociferously protested against the de facto Declaration of War against the Republic of Iraq in 2003 by the President in a very clear violation of delineated Constitutional powers.

As for the exclusion, it would see that the precedents have already been set.


The fix subsequently has become relevant as a successful solution for Presidential appointments to the United States Cabinet of sitting members of the United States Congress but not for appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

This prohibition is an example to me of something in the Constitution that made more sense in 1776 USA than 2006 USA. The ultimate intention of the exclusion clause here was to keep Congress from creating lavish ministerial posts that could be used essentially as bribes from a President.

Meh. If it would make the conservadrones happy, then Obama should reconsider.

He will have plenty of time in his second term to appoint her, if he really has his heart set on it... ;)

[balli]

This prohibition is an example to me of something in the Constitution that made more sense in 1776 USA than 2006 USA. The ultimate intention of the exclusion clause here was to keep Congress from creating lavish ministerial posts that could be used essentially as bribes from a President.
Actually I wouldn't put it past any executive or party administration, including the Democratic congress and Obama, to manufacture posts, that if not lavish, would at least serve as an incentive or bribery gestures. So, I don't think it's that bad a law to have/keep around; obviously though, within certain parameters. Like you recognize, any subsequent pay raise since since 2007 was not instilled in order to specifically benefit or entice Hillary Clinton. So while I like the anti-corruption sentiments the law contains, and in fact wish to keep them, obviously there has to pragmatic wiggle room... as the precedent represents.

[Extra Stout]

Obama picked a woman whom he could pay less to do the same work. He is just another oppressor from the patriarchy.

[Wild Cobra]

Reading is fundamental jackass.
You, as an ignorant jackass, is calling me a jackass?

Any idea how stupid you proved yourself to be.

Doob explained it. Do you like having foot-in-mouth desease? Maybe you should look up the words if you don't understand them, like "emoluments," then at least ask why I say such things if you don't know why I say such a thing applies.

Are you just another libtard?

[JoeChalupa]

:sleep

[Wild Cobra]

Just like the second amendment. What is it with Republican morons being too retarded to read the second half of the fucking sentence?

I don't follow. It's the democrats trying to unarm the public. What's your point?


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[RandomGuy]

Actually I wouldn't put it past any executive or party administration, including the Democratic congress and Obama, to manufacture posts, that if not lavish, would at least serve as an incentive or bribery gestures. So, I don't think it's that bad a law to have/keep around; obviously though, within certain parameters. Like you recognize, any subsequent pay raise since since 2007 was not instilled in order to specifically benefit or entice Hillary Clinton. So while I like the anti-corruption sentiments the law contains, and in fact wish to keep them, obviously there has to pragmatic wiggle room... as the precedent represents.

Yup. $10,000 per year increase to a multi-millionaire ain't gonna mean much.

I'm glad someone understood what I was saying. I concur as to what should ultimately be done.

It would seem common sense and precedent will prevail, but that won't keep the conserative blathersphere from pumping it up to an Armageddon level event. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

:sleep

Move over man...

Someone wake me up when something important happens.

:sleep :sleep

[ChumpDumper]

So she can be Secretary of State.

[Wild Cobra]

Yup. $10,000 per year increase to a multi-millionaire ain't gonna mean much.

I agree too.



It would seem common sense and precedent will prevail, but that won't keep the conserative blathersphere from pumping it up to an Armageddon level event. :rolleyes

It probably will prevail, and you're right. We conservatives will remind liberals that the constitution was violated if Hillary becomes SoS.

Liberals constantly use lies to demonize conservatives. In this case, we can pay the liberals back some. The spirit of the law indeed says she can take the job as long as it is at 2006 pay levels. However, there is still room to legally argue the Saxbe fix is still unconstitutional. Depending on how hard someone wants to fight it, and what the courts would decide. Who knows. It may be ruled as unconstitutional.

I think those of you who are liberal and spout hatred should consider that we can fight back in our own way. I am certain that there are conservatives who will fight this. Not because they really believe in one way the constitution can be read, but as spiteful payback, and they might be able to convince five judges.

Since liberals don't play nice, why should conservatives?

[Wild Cobra]

Move over man...

Someone wake me up when something important happens.

:sleep :sleep

Who would have thought.

The two of you sleeping together...

[boutons_]

"there are conservatives who will fight this"

Repugs and conservatives will pick fights over any trivial, distracting, side-show shit, it's what they do. ANYTHING but the real issues, while letting slide by all the super-serious shit that dubya and the Repugs did for 8 years, starting with NOT defending the USA against WTC attack.

Being pissed off about anything and everything is their fundamental emotion.

A fucking, cry-wolf YAWNER

[Anti.Hero]

Did she ever pay off her campaign debt or is she still waiting for outside money to fix that?

Nope, it's the big white corporate fucks who are the real assholes. Not these multi-millionaire politicians who take everyone's money and then expect others to pay for them.

Got it.

[Extra Stout]

The point of this sideshow is to promote the narrative that the Obama administration is illegitimate, to convince the True Believers that the majority would support them if not for the tricksy libs deceiving them.

It goes hand-in-hand with the whole birth certificate thing.

[LnGrrrR]

I think those of you who are liberal and spout hatred should consider that we can fight back in our own way. I am certain that there are conservatives who will fight this. Not because they really believe in one way the constitution can be read, but as spiteful payback, and they might be able to convince five judges.

Since liberals don't play nice, why should conservatives?

What are we, in fourth grade? I thought your side didn't play the 'moral equivalency' card?

[2centsworth]

I lean conservative on a lot of issues, but this type of stuff reeks of desperation if it's anything more than a reminder.

btw, IMO Obama is doing and talking a fine job so far.

[ChumpDumper]

It probably will prevail, and you're right. We conservatives will remind liberals that the constitution was violated if Hillary becomes SoS.Except it won't be. Arch-conservative Robert Bork made it possible.


Liberals constantly use lies to demonize conservatives. In this case, we can pay the liberals back some. The spirit of the law indeed says she can take the job as long as it is at 2006 pay levels. However, there is still room to legally argue the Saxbe fix is still unconstitutional. Depending on how hard someone wants to fight it, and what the courts would decide. Who knows. It may be ruled as unconstitutional.How hard does anybody want to fight it? You're just making shit up again.


I think those of you who are liberal and spout hatred should consider that we can fight back in our own way. I am certain that there are conservatives who will fight this. Not because they really believe in one way the constitution can be read, but as spiteful payback, and they might be able to convince five judges.I am certain there are conservatives as stupid as you who think they can fight this.


Since liberals don't play nice, why should conservatives?You play stupid because you are stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

Except it won't be. Arch-conservative Robert Bork made it possible.

How hard does anybody want to fight it? You're just making shit up again.

I am certain there are conservatives as stupid as you who think they can fight this.

You play stupid because you are stupid.
Read that constitutional clause carefully. Technically, the fact the raise was implemented disqualifies her. Even if the raise is rescinded, because it did happened, she is disqualified.

Technicalities my friend. Not my fault past instances weren’t challenged. A court challenge should surely disqualify her.

[balli]

Read that constitutional clause carefully. Technically, the fact the raise was implemented disqualifies her. Even if the raise is rescinded, because it did happened, she is disqualified.

Technicalities my friend. Not my fault past instances weren’t challenged. A court challenge should surely disqualify her.

Technically, you and this issue, can lick America's balls.

[Obstructed_View]

Actually I wouldn't put it past any executive or party administration, including the Democratic congress and Obama, to manufacture posts, that if not lavish, would at least serve as an incentive or bribery gestures. So, I don't think it's that bad a law to have/keep around; obviously though, within certain parameters. Like you recognize, any subsequent pay raise since since 2007 was not instilled in order to specifically benefit or entice Hillary Clinton. So while I like the anti-corruption sentiments the law contains, and in fact wish to keep them, obviously there has to pragmatic wiggle room... as the precedent represents.

I'm sure the founders never envisioned a world in which professional politicians would have so many avenues to wealth outside of the salary that they are paid for their positions, or term limits would have been in the constitution to begin with.

[Galileo]

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 reads:



Who are these liberals thinking they can break the highest law of the land?

Is this another one of your hair-brained conspiracy theories? You just hate women.

[ChumpDumper]

Technicalities my friend. Not my fault past instances weren’t challenged. A court challenge should surely disqualify her.So you are putting your vast legal experience against that of Robert Bork.

Take it up with him.

Let me know how it goes.

[sook]

why are republicans always the first to bring partisan bullshit up?
Its like everytime they find something wrong they bring party lines up. Its always like this

[Viva Las Espuelas]

why are republicans always the first to bring partisan bullshit up?
Its like everytime they find something wrong they bring party lines up. Its always like this

i laugh as i read this and glance at your sig.

[implacable44]

Just like the second amendment. What is it with Republican morons being too retarded to read the second half of the fucking sentence?

the 2nd amendment ? You are as stupid as they come. In your puny mind you deem the "2nd half" of the sentence, to mean gun rights are only for militia and not the common man ?

[Cry Havoc]

I'd love to see Hillary get booted out of the SoS job. I am not fond of her at all. But perhaps she'll do a good job.

[cool hand]

all she has to do is not accept the raise, but except the pay as it was...........simple fix.

[Wild Cobra]

all she has to do is not accept the raise, but except the pay as it was...........simple fix.

That's not how I read it.

The raise was already implemented, while she is a senator. The constitution uses the phrase "or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased." Well, they have been increased! It doesn't matter if she doesn't accept the raise. Nothing but time travel to prevent the raise can remove the legal fact that they have been increased!

What a sweet technicality...

Congress has been aware of this for years, yet never sought to make an amendment. Too bad.

[Rogue]

Hilary shouldn't be the secretary of state, just for the sake of his pansy husband. As long as our president-elect is a black man, why not have a black secretary of State? The present Secretary of State is Rice who has proven that the black also can do a great work in controlling the political affairs. I still want a black woman to be the secretary of state, but Rice is gonna retire from White House before long. Whichelse black woman do you think deserves to be the secretary of state? I nominate Halle Berry.

[Wild Cobra]

Hilary shouldn't be the secretary of state, just for the sake of his pansy husband. As long as our president-elect is a black man, why not have a black secretary of State? The present Secretary of State is Rice who has proven that the black also can do a great work in controlling the political affairs. I still want a black woman to be the secretary of state, but Rice is gonna retire from White House before long. Whichelse black woman do you think deserves to be the secretary of state? I nominate Halle Berry.
We may want to look antisexist and antiracist, but the rest of the world sill has many who are. Like it or not, in dealing with the Middle-East in the next few years, we are better off with a strong male in the SoS office. Maybe even one of Muslim faith!

[doobs]

That's not how I read it.

The raise was already implemented, while she is a senator. The constitution uses the phrase "or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased." Well, they have been increased! It doesn't matter if she doesn't accept the raise. Nothing but time travel to prevent the raise can remove the legal fact that they have been increased!

What a sweet technicality...

Congress has been aware of this for years, yet never sought to make an amendment. Too bad.

I kind of agree with you. But it's still a meaningless gripe.

(1) This has happened before. There is precedent for the Saxbe fix. That is what will happen here.

(2) Obama is entitled, as a general matter, to hire people he thinks are best suited to help his administration. It doesn't make sense to get in the way of that.

(3) Even if the appointment of Hillary is unconstitutional, there is still the matter of standing to consider. Hillary would basically have to do something in her capacity as Secretary of State to injure someone else, and that person would have to sue and make an issue out of the constitutionality of the appointment. That seems unlikely.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not how I read it.You can read it like an idiot all you want. It won't change anything.

[doobs]

You can read it like an idiot all you want. It won't change anything.

He isn't reading it like an idiot. A lot of legal scholars agree with him, actually. You may disagree with his interpretation, but you shouldn't call him an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

I kind of agree with you. But it's still a meaningless gripe.

(1) This has happened before. There is precedent for the Saxbe fix. That is what will happen here.

(2) Obama is entitled, as a general matter, to hire people he thinks are best suited to help his administration. It doesn't make sense to get in the way of that.

(3) Even if the appointment of Hillary is unconstitutional, there is still the matter of standing to consider. Hillary would basically have to do something in her capacity as Secretary of State to injure someone else, and that person would have to sue and make an issue out of the constitutionality of the appointment. That seems unlikely.Yes, but did anyone take the issue to the courts?

We live in a complaint driven society. If it is challenged, I solidly believe the courts will rule against her.

The precident is set if the courts decide it. Then, future courts can still reverse the decision.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

this should settle the debate, but somehow i think someone will split hairs. enjoy. i find it very commendable what Ronald Reagan did.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly approve of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but will the founding fathers veto this popular addition to Barack Obama's "team of rivals"?
Yes, according to one conservative interpretation of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution says the following: "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."
Translation: A lawmaker cannot fill a position if the salary for that position has been raised during that lawmaker's term in office.
In January, President Bush signed an executive order increasing the salary for the secretary of state and other Cabinet positions by $4,700. Hillary Clinton has been in the Senate since January 2001.
Case closed, says the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's ineligibility clause, so Hillary Clinton (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Hillary_Clinton) is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.
"No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment."
Not so fast, most legal scholars say.
In the past, lawmakers have found a way around the clause, with Congress changing the salary of the office in question back to what it originally was.
It happened when Ohio Sen. William Saxbe was named President Nixon's attorney general in 1974 and again when Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen became President Clinton's Treasury secretary in 1993.
"There are many ways around this problem," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted. "One is for Congress to vote a lower salary. Another way is for Hillary Clinton simply to accept a lower salary. Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state.
"This is not going to be an impediment to her being secretary of state," Toobin argued.
One Clinton aide said that both Clinton and Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) were aware of the issue when he announced her as his choice for secretary of state. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office said congressional Democrats are moving forward with a measure similar to what has been done before.
Judicial Watch takes issue with the precedent.
"We think it's inadequate," Fitton said. "You can't amend the Constitution through legislation like that. ... The Constitution doesn't have any caveats. It's plain as day."
Fitton pointed to what President Reagan did when facing a similar situation.
"Ronald Reagan took a look at this clause and decided against appointing Orrin Hatch, who was a senator and still is, to the Supreme Court," he noted.
Whatever the activists, scholars or pundits say, the public has apparently made up its mind.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 1-2 indicated that 71 percent of Americans approve of Obama's nomination of Clinton as his secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans split evenly on the pick.
CNN's Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, but did anyone take the issue to the courts?

We live in a complaint driven society. If it is challenged, I solidly believe the courts will rule against her.

The precident is set if the courts decide it. Then, future courts can still reverse the decision.Let me know who has the standing to file a suit.

[FromWayDowntown]

Let me know who has the standing to file a suit.

What's standing? :p:

[FromWayDowntown]

Is this another one of your hair-brained conspiracy theories?

Ah, irony at its finest.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, who wants to limit their own party's cabinet nominee list just because of an unhealthy obsession with Hillary Clinton?

Who could have standing in this case?

[doobs]

Seriously, who wants to limit their own party's cabinet nominee list just because of an unhealthy obsession with Hillary Clinton?

Who could have standing in this case?

I've been struggling with the standing issue. I suppose if the State Department fucked someone over--I don't know how--then that person could sue and attack the constitutionality of Hillary Clinton's appointment. I don't know. Lotta strands in old duder's head.

[ChumpDumper]

That's why the Obama birth certificate cases never got above the level of the Yoniwhottt soapbox.

[robbie380]

That's not how I read it.

The raise was already implemented, while she is a senator. The constitution uses the phrase "or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased." Well, they have been increased! It doesn't matter if she doesn't accept the raise. Nothing but time travel to prevent the raise can remove the legal fact that they have been increased!

What a sweet technicality...

Congress has been aware of this for years, yet never sought to make an amendment. Too bad.

i bet you would be all over this issue if mccain had won and he wanted to appoint a senator :lol


the ethical way to fix this would be just to recind the pay hike and there is precedent for that. and guess which party started that precedent?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/12/05/senate_plans_to_slash_salary_so_clinton_is_eligibl e_for_post/


Senate plans to slash salary so Clinton is eligible for post

December 5, 2008

The fix is apparently in - to help Hillary Clinton skirt a nettlesome constitutional provision and clear her path to become secretary of state.

The clause says that no member of Congress can be named to any office whose pay was raised during his or her term. In January, while Clinton was the junior US senator from New York, the salary for secretary of state was raised from $186,600 to $191,300.

The Senate is working on a bill to rescind the raise - a strategy also used in 1973 so that Senator William Saxbe, an Ohio Republican, could become attorney general. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, through a spokesman, said this week that she would go along.

Some bloggers and anti-Clinton groups have been pressing the case that the constitutional clause makes her ineligible for the post.

"And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement this week.

The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the issue with an editorial yesterday that was somewhat more forgiving.

"To our knowledge, Senator Clinton played no role in the salary raise, and she clearly had grander ambitions than Secretary of State when the law was signed. But while the issue will strike some as trivial, it is no small matter to ignore the Constitution's direct words. Giving Mrs. Clinton a pay cut is a minimum gesture of deference required to the document that Mr. Obama will soon swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend," it said.

[Wild Cobra]

i bet you would be all over this issue if mccain had won and he wanted to appoint a senator :lol


the ethical way to fix this would be just to recind the pay hike and there is precedent for that. and guess which party started that precedent?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/12/05/senate_plans_to_slash_salary_so_clinton_is_eligibl e_for_post/

Yes, I would complain if McCain did the same thing. Ive already seen the history on this. If you recall, I don't care much for RINO's like McCain anyway. How can you believe I would react differntly.

I say all involved in the past and present are disrespecting and violating the constitutiuon. You know, those same people who have sworn to uphold the constitution. They should be above question on the issue.

Yes, I read the history on the subject. They all should have been held accountable in the past. They should not be able to follow the same thing just because the legality wasn't challanged in the past.

Reinding the pay hike is not the answer. It is still illegal. The only ethical thing to do is withdraw the nomination on legal grounds, then ask for an amendment.

Hell. I'm not really against Hillary being SoS. I don't think she's the right person. I think she's too arrogant and self centered for the job. I also believe she's better than other potential Obama picks. I am simply tired of people trampling on our constitution.

[ChumpDumper]

Hell. I'm not really against Hillary being SoS. I don't think she's the right person.:lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

So.

You prove yourself to be a partisan bitch.

Only people with agendas take things out of context.

[ChumpDumper]

So.

You prove yourself to be a partisan bitch.

Only people with agendas take things out of context.I included the context. It's not my fault you contradicted one statement with the next one.

And there is nothing partisan about my argument. I'm fine with either party's using the Saxby fix. Once again you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Nbadan]

Hillary's campaign team was shrewed, rude, and over-the-top....see, she will make a fine SOS



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45266000/jpg/_45266475_45266472.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I included the context. It's not my fault you contradicted one statement with the next one.

And there is nothing partisan about my argument. I'm fine with either party's using the Saxby fix. Once again you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about.
Who do you think you're fooling? Maybe Boutons...

[ChumpDumper]

I am fooling no one, because I have nothing to hide here. I am completely for the Saxby fix. It absolutely satisfies the spirit of the Constitution.

I'm fairly neutral on the issue of Hillary's being SoS, though it does strike me as an odd choice.

[Wild Cobra]

I am fooling no one, because I have nothing to hide here. I am completely for the Saxby fix. It absolutely satisfies the spirit of the Constitution.

I'm fairly neutral on the issue of Hillary's being SoS, though it does strike me as an odd choice.

What I forgot to say is that I believe a cost of living raise should not be considered an increase. I personally think that is the proper approach to take. I agree the spirit of the law and the black and white are two differnt things. That is one reason I am skeptical of most new laws. Loopholes and unintended consequenses. Still, without actually being to acertain the founders intent, the black and white of the law must stand.

The pay has been increased. The Saxby fix cannot erase a fact already past. It doesn't matter if she gets the old rate. The rate increase is now fact.

[ChumpDumper]

Still, without actually being to acertain the founders intent, the black and white of the law must stand.The founders' intent is completely obvious here. They wanted to avoid members of congress being able to invent cushy patronage jobs or massively increased salaries for existing jobs to which they could subsequently be appointed. The former does not apply here and the Saxby Fix negates the latter.

[Wild Cobra]

The founders' intent is completely obvious here. They wanted to avoid members of congress being able to invent cushy patronage jobs or massively increased salaries for existing jobs to which they could subsequently be appointed. The former does not apply here and the Saxby Fix negates the latter.

When I read a link on the original record (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_6_2s1.html), it only passed by one vote to have it as read. They went from June until September trying to resolve this. There was not clear consensus on the intent. I would like to assume as you do. I just see it the opposite. One revision had the phrase “on the ineligibility of the members during the term for which they were elected” without the “or emoluments” attached, the vote was 8 yes 2 no 1 undecided. Adding the “created or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased” barely passed. The vote was 5 yes, 4 no, 1 undecided.

[ChumpDumper]

Now their intent is even more clear.

Thanks for the votes.

[Winehole23]

US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Supreme_Court_refuses_to_hear_Cl_06072010.html

[DMX7]

Read that constitutional clause carefully. Technically, the fact the raise was implemented disqualifies her. Even if the raise is rescinded, because it did happened, she is disqualified.

Technicalities my friend. Not my fault past instances weren’t challenged. A court challenge should surely disqualify her.



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: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office .

Guess our constitution needs some updating. :shrugs:

[DMX7]

US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Supreme_Court_refuses_to_hear_Cl_06072010.html

Nice bitch slap, supreme court.

And this is a conservative court regardless of the dem/rep count.

But really, pursuing this type of ambiguous technicality is truly for people with no life. Therefore I'm unsurprised Wild Cobra would be all over it.

[ChumpDumper]

A court challenge should surely disqualify her.:lmao

[RandomGuy]

US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Supreme_Court_refuses_to_hear_Cl_06072010.html

Sooooo basically when I, as others noted as well, said here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2935254&postcount=9

That there was precedent, and this is simply pretty much a non-issue, then the SCOTUS seems to agree with that. yay.

[Wild Cobra]

Nice bitch slap, supreme court.

And this is a conservative court regardless of the dem/rep count.

But really, pursuing this type of ambiguous technicality is truly for people with no life. Therefore I'm unsurprised Wild Cobra would be all over it.
Well, i cannot be shown right or wrong is the case isn't being heard.

[RandomGuy]

Well, i cannot be shown right or wrong is the case isn't being heard.

Someone, likely several someones, read the case and determined that it didn't have enough of a merit to warrant the SCOTUS' time.

That says volumes, even if you are technically correct.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, i cannot be shown right or wrong is the case isn't being heard.

:lmao

Are you fucking stupid?

[Winehole23]

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. SC didn't touch the merits.

[Wild Cobra]

Someone, likely several someones, read the case and determined that it didn't have enough of a merit to warrant the SCOTUS' time.

That says volumes, even if you are technically correct.
Merit? I doubt it, technically, it would set precedent. I would think most people, including myself, don't think what is considered a cost of living increase is important enough. the supreme court can only take so many cases, and most have to be denied a hearing. I'm sure there are far more important issues.

[Wild Cobra]

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. SC didn't touch the merits.
Jurisdiction? Where is that said?

[ChumpDumper]

Jurisdiction? Where is that said?
The case, originally filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, was dismissed last year after a judge ruled that Mr. Rodearmel did not have the proper "standing" to challenge Mrs. Clinton's eligibility.

Judicial Watch appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled Monday that it did not have appropriate jurisdiction to take the case. The court said it did not reach "any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/7/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-clinton-post/

I figured the standing issue would stop most cases before they began.