http://rokdrop.com/2008/11/24/article-one-section-six-and-hillary-clinton/ Korea From North to South Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:44:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://rokdrop.com/2008/11/24/article-one-section-six-and-hillary-clinton/comment-page-1/#comment-252489 Article One, Section Six and Hillary Clinton - Hillary Rodham Clinton Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:36:15 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=9910#comment-252489 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] Article One, Section Six and Hillary Clinton [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] Article One, Section Six and Hillary Clinton [...]

]]> http://rokdrop.com/2008/11/24/article-one-section-six-and-hillary-clinton/comment-page-1/#comment-252085 permalink Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:38:04 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=9910#comment-252085 Good to see that the right haven't completely forgotten that the U.S. has a constitution. Good to see that the right haven’t completely forgotten that the U.S. has a constitution.

]]> http://rokdrop.com/2008/11/24/article-one-section-six-and-hillary-clinton/comment-page-1/#comment-251697 capt america Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:36:33 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=9910#comment-251697 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……. 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…….

]]>