Reply With Quote
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
Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 reads:
Who are these liberals thinking they can break the highest law of the land?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.
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
Just like the second amendment. What is it with Republican morons being too re ed to read the second half of the ing sentence?
Congrats, Annie Oakley!!!!!!
Et tu, Hillary?
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 cons utionality 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 cons utional hurdle in this case is really no hurdle at all, except for the parrots who haven't thought things through all the way.
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 Cons utional powers.
As for the exclusion, it would see that the precedents have already been set.
This prohibition is an example to me of something in the Cons ution 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...
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.
Obama picked a woman whom he could pay less to do the same work. He is just another oppressor from the patriarchy.
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 lib ?
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.
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.
Move over man...
Someone wake me up when something important happens.
So she can be Secretary of State.
I agree too.
It probably will prevail, and you're right. We conservatives will remind liberals that the cons ution was violated if Hillary becomes SoS.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.
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 uncons utional. Depending on how hard someone wants to fight it, and what the courts would decide. Who knows. It may be ruled as uncons utional.
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 cons ution 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?
Who would have thought.Move over man...
Someone wake me up when something important happens.
The two of you sleeping together...
"there are conservatives who will fight this"
Repugs and conservatives will pick fights over any trivial, distracting, side-show , it's what they do. ANYTHING but the real issues, while letting slide by all the super-serious 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 ing, cry-wolf YAWNER
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 s 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.
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.
What are we, in fourth grade? I thought your side didn't play the 'moral equivalency' card?
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.
Except it won't be. Arch-conservative Robert Bork made it possible.
How hard does anybody want to fight it? You're just making up again.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 uncons utional. Depending on how hard someone wants to fight it, and what the courts would decide. Who knows. It may be ruled as uncons utional.
I am certain there are conservatives as stupid as you who think they can fight this.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 cons ution can be read, but as spiteful payback, and they might be able to convince five judges.
You play stupid because you are stupid.Since liberals don't play nice, why should conservatives?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
