WORLDmag.com | Community | Blog Archive | Constitution vs. Hillary

Politics, WorldMagBlog Print

Click to Print

Include Comments

Constitution vs. Hillary

8 Comments

Written by Emily Belz

November 29, 9:52 AM

Rumors are that Barack Obama will announce Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state soon.

But The Washington Post writes that the U.S. Constitution might be standing in her way.

The Constitution forbids a member of Congress from becoming a cabinet member if the salary of the cabinet member was raised during the member’s time in Congress.

In Clinton’s case, during her current term in the Senate, which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300.

President Nixon got around the Constitution in the “The Saxbe Fix” in 1973 when he nominated Sen. William Saxbe as attorney general, though the AG’s salary had been raised during Saxbe’s time in the Senate. Saxbe instead took the a lower, pre-1969 salary.

But Democrats in the past have inveighed against this sleight-of-hand. In the Saxbe case, 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against the ploy on constitutional grounds. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

Call it the Hillary Amendment?

Topic: Politics, WorldMagBlog

Keywords: Hillary-Clinton, president-nixon, secretary-of-state, william-saxbe

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Email a friend

RSS 2.0

back to top8 Comments to “Constitution vs. Hillary”

BY Ivan the Terrible 11.29.08 AT 10:06 AM

Verrrrrrrrrrrry interesting. Wanna bet they do the same thing as Nixon?
Report comment to moderator
BY Sawgunner 11.29.08 AT 10:08 AM

We had an interesting variation on this law a few years back in Austin. A UT Austin prof was elected to the city council. Later someone discovered (tee hee hee) that as a current state employee the prof was ineligible to draw the colosssal salary paid to city councilmen.
I think he served out one term. With zero council pay his whole term.

Call me psychic but I suspect this law will be conveniently skirted or ignored. Calls to mind the howls of protest when Chuck Colson pilfered what maybe a dozen or so FBI files and then was sent to prison. Meanwhile, the Clintons pilfered how many FBI files and NOTHING happened about it.
Report comment to moderator
BY Frank in Spokane 11.29.08 AT 10:41 AM

Easy peasy. All the Senate has to do is quote Henry Hyde — something like this:

There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. The emoluments clause is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why should President Obama obey the emoluments clause if he doesn’t have to? We are saying to the President, “Appoint whomever you like.” So, to demand that he obey Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.

When it came time to grant President Bush the power to invade Iraq if he wanted to — congressional Declaration of War or not — Henry Hyde demonstrated that conservative Republicans believe the Constitution to be a “living document” every bit as much as liberal Democrats do. So let’s all just quit pretending that the Constitution actually has anything to say about the actual governance of this nation, shall we?

“The Constitution is the Queen Mum of American politics. She gets trundled out on the balcony to wave at the adoring crowds from time to time, but nobody ever does what she says.” ~ Douglas Wilson

” … and that goes for Republicans every bit as much as it goes for Democrats.” ~ Frank in Spokane
Report comment to moderator
BY kBells 11.29.08 AT 10:53 AM

Reckon Obama knew this when he made the offer. Now he can say “Well, I made the offer. It’s not my fault you couldn’t take the job.”
Report comment to moderator
BY John M. 11.29.08 AT 11:04 AM

I’m not that worried about this. It’s hard to believe any senator would vote for a salary increase just because they thought they would get the job.

I’ more worried about Hillary’s total lack of foreign policy experience (why was this a problem for Palin but not for her?), and her lack of people skills.
Report comment to moderator
BY Sawgunner 11.29.08 AT 11:09 AM

The Clinton’s can presumably still pocket plenty of bling by Bill’s lecture fees. You just watch.
Are we in for yet another instance of Clintonian “Most ethical administration in history”??
I pray not.
Report comment to moderator
BY Scroop Moth 11.29.08 AT 2:49 PM

Wanna bet they do the same thing as Nixon?

Following a precedent is a different thing than creating one.

I suspect this law will be conveniently skirted or ignored.

You can be sure the law will be obeyed to the letter. The salary will be lowered while Hillary is still a senator, which means that the salary will remain unchanged, net, or even lowered by the amount of $1 by the close of her tenure in Congress.

. . . the Clintons pilfered how many FBI files and NOTHING happened about it.

The most expensive criminal investigation in world history ensued (and that probably includes the Pan Am bombing). That was at least something.
Report comment to moderator
BY Bob Buckles 11.30.08 AT 9:53 AM

#5 John M

“I’ more worried about Hillary’s total lack of foreign policy experience (why was this a problem for Palin but not for her?), and her lack of people skills.”

I was sitting in a hotel restaurant in Lansing, MI a week ago Friday having breakfast. I heard the three twenty somethings behind me. One said something about Gov. Granholm of MI being a better speaker than Hilllary, even though Hillary was very eloquent.

I thought about saying something, but decided not to embarrass my wife or make a fool of myself.

I figure beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The ear too.
Report comment to moderator