It seems that even European countries can easily recognize the disdain that the Democrats have for The Constitution and the legal acrobat tricks they pull to get around following the rules clearly written out to guide our legislators. Appointing Hillary to the Secretary of State position is clearly unconstitutional but that means very little to the leftards.
From a newspaper in the UK:
Hillary Clinton's appointment as US Secretary of State has been challenged as unconstitutional. In fact it conflicts with Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution which states: "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."
Hillary Clinton has been a Senator since 2001. In January of this year President Bush signed an executive order raising the salary of the Secretary of State by $4,700. That disqualifies her from taking office, according to the advocacy group Judicial Watch. But Democrat apologists insist there are ways to circumvent this disqualification. Congress could reduce the salary to its former level, as was done in 1974 to enable Senator William Saxbe to become attorney general and in 1993 to facilitate Senator Lloyd Bentsen becoming treasury secretary.
Those moves were unconstitutional, riposte the purists, carried out by Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, both notorious for constitutional improprieties. Using a Clinton precedent to validate a Clinton promotion does have a gamey odour to it. Opponents point out that, because of this clause, Ronald Reagan refrained from appointing Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, Democrats are preparing measures to evade the clause. One notion proposed has been that it should be ignored since nobody has the standing to sue under its provisions to block Clinton's appointment. The same argument was advanced, during the recent election, when some of the common people impertinently asked to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, as proof of his right to stand for the presidency.
So, after the founding fathers burned so much midnight oil over that document, it turns out to be inaccessible, unenforceable and irrelevant. Proponents of a written constitution for Britain might take note of this situation.
18 comments:
Don't you hate it when your emoluments whereof go up? (WHAT a word!)
Pops..great piece here; Not sure I agree with the premise that this should be a constitutional impropriety because who knows what a senator's future might hold, BUT...
THE LAW IS THE LAW!! (isn't it?) WASN'T IT?
Z -- This was designed by the founding fathers as another way of protecting people from legislators abusing them. The premise is sound as the founding fathers never meant for someone to make a "career" out of being a senator or a representative. They intended for people who had a career to put that aside in order to SERVE the people and not to spend their life ruling over the people. Their opinions of someone's future is that after SERVING they would return to their original career and life having done their part to help the people.
Good post, better explanation of Z's question. While I understand Z's assertion that the clause may be a little dated, I agree with the notion that politics was not supposed to be a career.
It seems that we are just seeing the beginning of the assault on the Constitution. Let's just see if the media covers this as well as they covered GWB's alleged abuses.
The people could bring this to court. If enough people took up cases against the United States Federal Government then we'd probably force this issue into its rightful place. As long as no one does anything, they will continue to do what they want.
What happened to states rights? You know, a states right to declare a federal law unconstitutional and completely ignore it. Did we abandon this in 1891?
Shaina-Yes, in fact, love Lincoln as I do, he assaulted states rights also.
The nea has succeeded in dumbing down the citizery to the point that voters look for style over substance.
And they have NO CLUE as to their RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES under the Constitution...it is de facto null and void.
G*D bless and MARANATHA!
tmw
This kind of sophistry makes a mockery of constitutional government.
So all an outgoing president has to do is sign an executive order increasing pay of nearly all offices by a trifle and all sitting congress is locked out of appointments.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the clause is intended to include only those who voted for an increase but so what.
It's stuff like this that give us leftists confidence the the right is totally out to lunch and will be easily defeated and marginalized now that the bankruptcy of the conservative movement has been exposed.
Shredding the Constitution? You embarrass yourself with that hyperbole, Frank.
I don't think there's anything anyone can do to stop it. Circumventing the parts of the Constitution they don't like is what the libs do. They only complain when republicans like Nixon do it.
surely you've heard of the term "ash heap of history"? the constitution makes for very good fire starter for the left. always has.
Ducky -- Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the left's disdain for our Constitution. Thanks also for showing once again how leftards view everything in the entire world as George Bush's fault. I guess you ignored the part of the article, which was from the UK and not from the right, about how Ronald Reagan was honorable and chose to uphold the will of our founding fathers and respect the law of the land. Your comments at all of our blogs continually remind us the idiocy we are up against. Those of us with an intense love for our country and respect for her Constitution thank you greatly.
Pretty soon the citizens of this nation will be reduced to enforcing the Constitution w/bullets instead of words. Only then will the "wordmeisters" learn to once again respect it.
Sign me up FJ.
inaccessible, unenforceable and irrelevant
it is a sad day when the brittish are saying this about the documents our ancestors risked their lives (against the brittish i might add) to create. who would have ever thought that our disregard for this document would be fodder for a brit saying they don't need a constitution...
Where has my America gone?
I'm on Ducky's side here. I like the idea of telling a police officer I thought the law was more of an ambiguous guideline. When you look at the constitution in this light you can see endless possibilities! And the best part... every single one is lawful! Seriously, think of ANYTHING you can imagine, do your worst... now see how the constitution makes that legal! Feel free to add or subtract words, hell, multiply and divide them if you need. The transverse property is in order. Flip it, reverse it. Good work young patriot! You are well on your way to becoming a responsible American citizen. Thank goodness for the liberty to do whatever the hell we want! Yay for everyone!
No Frank, you are completely incorrect. I respect the intent of the Constitution. The founders wished to prevent someone from enriching themselves in office.
Now a normal raise in pay that barely covered inflation is not going to meet a reasonableness test. Founding intent requires reasoning at times.
I fear that many approach the Constitution the same way they approach the Bible, as literal revealed truth.
The Founders valued reason, not blind acceptance and it is quite clear to me which side is really concerned about the country's future.
The Reagan revolution fell flat on its face Frank. Bush drove the last spikes and we move on. Worrying about a piece of sophistry is not love of nation. It is slavery to abandon reason.
And yet again Ducky, thanks!!!
Ducky -- please feel free to read Shaina's satire right before your last comment.
Ducky Dear. May I call you that?
I wanted you to clear up the inflation you talked about this pay raise covering.
The inflation the government supported on creating by borrowing money we didn't have at a ridiculous interest rate, so the country men and woman owe more than they could possibly pay back? And by possibly pay back I mean it is literally impossible, not improbable, but impossible if you knew anything about the banking system. Here is a short example. Lets say I create money. You want some. I say here is 10 dollars but you owe me 11 back (interest). How do you plan on getting that extra dollar? You have to ask me for it. And I will charge you 1.10 for that dollar. Now you owe me 12.10 for your 11 dollars. More money is owed than has been given. And this is a pyramid too, so this happens many times over from one bank to another before you or I see a penny of it. The government sees it first, so when they spend the dollar they get a dollars worth minus interest. We get a dollar minus ten banks lending ten banks money with interest (made up money) attached.
And is this the same inflation causing the devaluation of the dollar and the market collapse sending thousands of Americans home without jobs? I bet they would like some of your new inflation protection "reasoning".
I just want to make sure you understand what you are saying. Because I do, and you sound like an idiot.
Sometimes the constitution requires reasoning. Like knowing why the constitution was written, what it was protecting against and what it was protecting. You don't seem to understand that reasoning. You only understand your 2008 "reasoning" and therefore should lose all your protections under the constitution. Oh wait, you give them up freely, never mind.
грязное порно
лысая пизда
45 ягодка порно
порно флэшки безплатно
домашнї порно
Post a Comment