Judicial Watch believes that Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution makes it impossible for Senator Hillary Clinton to be appointed Secretary of State. Article I, section 6 says, “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 encreased during such time.”
The salary of the Secretary of State has been increased since Senator Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate. Judicial Watch hopes to bring a lawsuit, and is searching for a plaintiff who will have standing.
This issue came up during the Nixon administration. When Nixon appointed U.S. Senator William Saxbe to be Attorney General, Congress passed a bill lowering the Attorney General’s salary back to what it had been. Apparently no one sued to block the Saxbe appointment. Judicial Watch says that the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution do not permit such a “fix”.
Of course one cannot rely up the Congress to enforce its own laws or the Constitution by rejecting the confirmation of Mrs. Clinton. Another example that an unrepresentative (too small) House of Representatives is nothing but an appendage of the Executive Branch.
As noted elsewhere the size of the US House should be expanded by a factor of six to ten.
A friend has pointed out to me that Senator Clinton could conceivably resign from the Senate before she is formally nominated to be Secretary of State.
That sounds like it would render the entire clause unenforceable. I think “during the time for which he was elected” might be intended to prevent that kind of scenario.
The constitution says an office to which HE was elected. Hillary is a She- case closed.
Would it be acceptable for Mrs Clinton to take the position at the lower salary? That way, she doesn’t raise her own salary.
There’s a good discussion of this at Balkinizantion. The most recent post links to the previous one.
Finding a plaintiff with standing may be a problem, at least if there’s any analogy between this situation and the cases questioning whether candidate X is a “natural born citizen”. Election law scholar Dan Tokaji has this analysis of that issue which covers the question of standing in detail.
The clause was to END office buying (by legislator votes) — a very major corrupt part of the pre-1776 British Parliament.
The Constitution continues to ROT away under the nonstop attacks by STATISTS who want UNLIMITED government.
Would it be acceptable for Mrs Clinton to take the position at the lower salary? That way, she doesn’t raise her own salary.
That would be controversial, but it has been done before. (I don’t have the history immeiately available, though). Nonetheless, some people would argue that due to the language of the Constitution, this is an unconstitutional solution. What would happen if Hillary’s nomination were challenged in court, I dont know,
I think Rahm Emanuel falls under this category as well. I think Chris Cox should never have been confirmed under this theory as well.
I like this as a reform and believe the intent was not to allow persons in the Legislature to move to the Executive office during their term. I also believe it means the time period you would have had to serve even if that person did resign, the time period should still hold.