http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s
"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."
Interestingly enough, this prevent Hilary from being eligible for Secreatary of State (at least constituitionally)
"A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position."
This is quite interesting but does it matter? I mean, a lot things the US has done is still technically unconstitional but as the president of judical watch Tom Fitton says,
"No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
It doesn't really matter to me but that might be because I lack a full scope of the situation. Anyway, do you guys like Hilary Clinton? Should she still try to take the position risking something from the Republicans? Comment below
Poor Pastor Mike
3 hours ago
6 comments:
I think she would be a decent Secretary of State, and I wouldn't eaxclty agree she has a "history of severe corruption" or the like, that idea brings to mind more Nixon, or Bush, but I also don't stalk Clinton or really know a whole lot about her. The bit about it being unconstitutional is interesting and I hadn't thought about it, so it will ultimately be the Senates decision whether or not to approve her yes?
It is possible, yet I have a personal feeling that she may be an extremist if she were to be in the seat of the Secrety of State. But anyhow that was my personal opinion, despite that I think she has the experience and rank to become one. I think now its all whether the people(the public) and the government likes her to be in that seat rather than her political knowlegde and requirements of a Senate.
Please let her be ineligible. I don't like her. I haven't liked her since she deliberately lied during her campaign. What makes her so qualified anyways??
I guess we'll see whether or not she gets approved. She probably will...
I agree with Roxane. Tom Fitton's comment about Hilary is totally ridiculous. If she really was this "corrupt", Obama would have known about it and (duh!) wouldn't have nominated her. Also, she has an incredible track record for a politician - launched a health care plan (even though it eventually failed), became the first female senator of NY, and RAN FOR PRESIDENT. If anyone knows what politics is all about, it's her. But her constitutional right to be the Secretary of State is troubling. The Supreme Court will not overlook this one sentence of the Constitution, so there is a high chance she will be rejected. The Supreme Court has not been known to bat its eyes at a problem and let something unconstitutional slide. Her fate is completely in their hands. Unlike Lauriane, I think she probably won't make it to the White House as Secretary of State.
Definitely an interesting thought, although I wouldn't mind Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State even if she is constitutionally ineligible. She has the experience.
I think it would be controversial because you do make a point about a lot of things in the US done unconstionally, but some people would agree that if you let this one slip then in future years people will just begin to disregard the Constiution, basically setting an example for future years. Technically she is ineligible, but if a Constiutional amendment can be made without just violating the Constitution then she'll be eligible, but I doubt an amendment will take place.
Post a Comment