Friday, January 30, 2009

Lawsuit filed claiming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve


There were serious questions about the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to serve as secretary of State. The issue arises from the Secretary of States salary having been raised during Hillary Clinton's term in the Senate. The Constitution forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the Secretary of State, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the Senator's term. This clearly occurred. Congress tried to do an end run around the Constitution by lowering the Secretary of States salary. This does not change the historical fact that the salary of the Secretary of State was raised three times during Hillary Clinton's tenure as a Senator from New York. This case will eventually end up at the Supreme Court.
Lawsuit challenges Clinton eligibility
State department officer claims Constitution bars Obama appointee from serving
Posted: January 30, 2009
12:20 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A State Department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claiming she is constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C, on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel. Excerpted from worldnetdaily.com

7 comments:

Ms Calabaza said...

Not to mention, her husband getting drunk with Putin at Davos ... I give her less than a year before she's out ...

Alessandro Machi said...

The constitution clearly mentions MEN when describing this rule. It says nothing about it applying to women.

Seriously, go read the rule and you will see it does not mention women but mentions men. So, even if it is a technality, it is quite the solid technicality.

http://www.DailyPUMA.com

rewinn said...

Two questions:

1. What vote are you talking about? Your source doesn't link to the vote because it doesn't exist; your source is trying to fool you.

2. Does you source think we have to retroactively cancel the similar appointments of:

* Senator Philander Knox as Secretary of State by President Taft in 1909
* Senator William Saxbe as Attorney General by President Nixon in 1973
* Senator Edmund Muskie as Secretary of State by President Carter in 1980
* Senator Lloyd Bentsen as Secretary of the Treasury by President Clinton?

Read and learn

The Intellectual Redneck said...

"rewinn said...

Two questions:

1. What vote are you talking about? Your source doesn't link to the vote because it doesn't exist; your source is trying to fool you."

Actually you are correct on the vote issue. The last raise was by executive order, but clearly the "emoluments" clause is in effect. That is why both Congress passed sjr46. Link here.. This has been done in the past for others. Although it has been hotly debated, legal experts have different opinions of whether a rollback would suffice to make Hillary eligible. Since we now have a legal challenge, the Supreme Court will have to decide.

Stanford Matthews said...

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2002/inelhall.htm

The link above is an example of what one can easily find on this topic with a simple search. The references to US code may be helpful. But the point is there is likely more at issue than the ineligibility clause itself. Much has occurred since the Constitution was written which may alter the interpretation in the present and render the Judicial Watch case an exercise in futility.

Personally I would find a successful outcome to the suit very satisfying. And even though a case like the lawsuit(s) filed challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States presented another tantalizing prospect a simple rejection based on standing as viewed by SCOTUS suggests a similar outcome with regard to HRC and the ineligibility clause.

But we can always 'hope' for a 'change' that would retire the Queen of Cringe.

As a parting note, it is refreshing to receive a trackback that is relevant. Thanks to the Intellectual Redneck for a heads up on this topic.

Anonymous said...

You are a bit of a nutter.

Interested Bystander said...

Hey All,

I thought when Obama nominated her that he may have done it to keep her under his thumb.

She is not in a position to criticize his decisions now, because it is her job to follow his directives.

I thought she would be in a much better position if she would have stayed in the Senate.

Anyway, I guess now if she is found not to be able to hold the Secretary of State position, she will become outraged, and then "Katie bar the door".

Interesting political move by Barack Obama.

I will predict that if she is removed from office, she will become the biggest thorn in Obama's side.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.