By Douglas V. Gibbs
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 2: "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."
In other words, the emoluments (or wage) for Secretary of State was increased while she was in the U.S. Senate, therefore, Hillary Clinton is ineligible for the position.
The Democrats, however, used an oft used "fix" to correct the situation, called "The Saxbe Fix." Essentially, they rolled back the amount the Secretary of State can earn to the amount it was when Hillary Clinton took her seat in the Senate.
Sort of like waving a magic wand, going back in time, and acting as if what made her ineligible never happened.
Problem is, the Saxbe Fix is not addressed in the Constitution, and it does not change the fact that the emoluments were increased for the position of Secretary of State while she was in the Senate.
A case filed using that exact argument has worked its way through the court system, and has gotten to the point that a brief has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The accusation includes government evading the clear and precise language of the U.S. Constitution through the use of a legislative "fix."
The case was brought on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel, who argues that "compensation and other emoluments" of the office of secretary of state rose during Clinton's tenure in the Senate. A special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, concluding Rodearmel lacked standing. Standing, however, should be granted because this issue is directly concerning the U.S. Constitution, and since the Constitution was written of the people, by the people, and for the people, clearly The People has standing.
Judicial Watch argued Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former senator as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the U.S. Constitution.
"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as secretary of state until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution."
The salary was not only increased during Mrs. Clinton's second term in the U.S. Senate, but it was increased three times. The Congress can rollback such an increase all they wish, but it does not erase the fact that the increases occurred.
"At the core of the case is the casual disregard of a clear and unambiguous directive of the Constitution," the brief states.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Hillary's eligibility challenged in Supreme Court: Can political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution? - World Net Daily
Saxbe Fix - Wikipedia
Post a Comment