By Doesn’t Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, know the constitution? From the Washington Post-
Even if the vetting problems involving former president Bill Clinton’s finances can be resolved, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may face another roadblock on her way to the secretary of state’s chair.It’s called the Constitution of the United States, specifically, Article One, Section Six, also known as the emoluments clause. (“Emoluments” means things like salaries.) It says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office “the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term.” This applies, we’re advised, whether the member actually voted on the raises or not.
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. This situation has arisen before, most famously in the case called “The Saxbe Fix,” but it involves a controversial, somewhat tortured reading of the Sacred Document.
It is just plain incredible no one has thought of this before. That goes for both the media and law professor bloggers. Here is the particular part of the constitution in question-
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.
President Nixon worked his way around it when he nominated Ohio Senator William Saxbe to be Attorney General in 1973. Will Obama risk a constitutional battle by nominating Hillary?
Doug at Below the Beltway writes-
Could it possibly be…….”You know, Hillary, I really wanted you to be my Secretary of State, but the Constitution says I can’t have you. Sorry.”
Talk about out clauses.
9:36 pm on November 23rd, 2008 1
Good try, but this does not apply because any government office she was elected to or appointed to would prove to be a pay cut in terms of compensation for Senator Clinton. The estimated net worth of her and her husband is estimated to be around a quarter of a billion dollars. Even a strict constructionist would see the flaws in this argument. The idea that a thirty thousand dollar a year increase would somehow be some sort of decisive financial advantage for the senator is completely absurd. An emolument which is better defined as an advantage when referring to compensation would be a hard sell when you look at the totality of the senator’s finances. I personally can’t stand Senator Clinton, but like I said before even a constructionist view of the country's governing document would prove not applicable to Senator Clinton potential nomination in this context because of her immense personal wealth. Article One, Section Six, of the constitution was inputted in the constitution to prevent elected officials from getting rich by being appointed to lucrative vacant position within the government. It was not intended to apply to the already rich framer types…….
3:38 pm on November 24th, 2008 2
Good to see that the right haven't completely forgotten that the U.S. has a constitution.
11:36 pm on November 25th, 2008 3
[...] Article One, Section Six and Hillary Clinton [...]