Comments on: Is Hillary Clinton Eligible to be Secretary of State? (Updated)

By: Steven Pounders

Steven Pounders — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:30:18 +0000

The answer to a frivolous grievance is a frivolous rebuttal. The article only applies when a salary is increased "during the Time for which he was elected".

Quite clearly, the Framers only intended this limitation for male senators. It doesn't apply to Hillary.

By: LTC MD McDowell

LTC MD McDowell — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:55:19 +0000

Amazing the high jinks people try, to keep the Courts involved in matter that they disagree with. For years the Republican Party has openly criticized frivolous lawsuits and championed tort reform, yet they hypocritically intervene in matters, IE Terry Sciavo, Bush v. Gore, etc. and other matters to fan the legal flames of cases that have no standing in the first place. I think it is time for the radicals of the GOP to ween themselves off of their diapers and engage in some serious toilet training. In other words, GROW UP!!!!

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The Emoluments Clause Controvery Goes Mainstream

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:32:33 +0000

[...] Joyner is apparently among those who find the argument unpersuasive: It seems to me that it would be absurd to apply the Clause in such a way as to exclude Clinton. [...]

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:10:11 +0000

BTW/ You've misquoted Volokh's three questions, or more specifically omitted one question and repeated another question twice.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:49:53 +0000

What's most surprising is the belief that someone would have standing to sue. Recall that standing was denied to persons complaining that McCain and Obama were not "natural born citizens," or that Bush/Cheney were not domiciled in separate states.

Past practice has been for Congress to give standing to any person aggrieved by its Constitutional side-step. Why? Buck-passing? A desire to be ruled by Judges?

By: The Heretik : What?

The Heretik : What? — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:04:26 +0000

[...] A good question. [...]

By: Kirk

Kirk — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:18:17 +0000

Come on doesn’t anyone read let alone understand the words in the USC?

This simply prevents double dipping of Senator's or Reps from serving in legislative and executive branch at the same time. It also prevents them from taking newly created posts or ones that pay more. Bottom line is it prevents patronage to buy votes.

NO COURT WILL OR WOULD ENTERTAIN THIS SILLYNESS!

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 6 - Compensation
"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; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."