Aw, geez...Not this $#!+ again.

Why is this even an issue? She isn't going to work at the new salary.

I think that Barack is too much of a Constitutional scholar to weasle through on something like the Saxbe fix.

Who would have the standing to challenge her appointment in court?

Ryan2065: Why is this even an issue? She isn't going to work at the new salary.

For the next 4-8 years you're going to have these nitwits claiming the entire Obama administration was illegal (Obama isn't really a citizen! Clinton's appointment was unconstitutional! Whatever else we can make up or blow out of proportion!).

It's just a goddamned piece of paper, anyway.

notmtwain: Who would have the standing to challenge her appointment in court?

Who is, no one.

notmtwain: Who would have the standing to challenge her appointment in court?

Congress could choose to not appoint her.

But, I don't know of anyone that would have the standing to sue her or Obama? for doing this other than someone else that wants to be Secretary of State (maybe?)

The Supreme Court should just go ahead and rule on the Saxbe fix and be done with it.

this is probably the 4th thread about it...

bulldg4life: The Supreme Court should just go ahead and rule on the Saxbe fix and be done with it.

You have to solve the standing issue first. No standing = no case or controversy. No case or controversy = no Supreme Court review.

It is unconstitutional on its face. You can't get around a constitutional provision by mere statute. It requires an amendment, which the so-called "Saxbe fix" is not.

Rev. Skarekroe: For the next 4-8 years you're going to have these nitwits claiming the entire Obama administration was illegal (Obama isn't really a citizen! Clinton's appointment was unconstitutional! Whatever else we can make up or blow out of proportion

like the past 8 years of "Bush stole the election and Al Gore should be president"

albo: like the past 8 years of "Bush stole the election and Al Gore should be president"

Yes, Obama's citizenship is definitely the same as how the 2000 election was handled. Thanks for that simplification.

bulldg4life: Yes, Obama's citizenship is definitely the same as how the 2000 election was handled. Thanks for that simplification

the impotent whining, though, will be the same

Nabb1: You have to solve the standing issue first. No standing = no case or controversy. No case or controversy = no Supreme Court review.

It is unconstitutional on its face. You can't get around a constitutional provision by mere statute. It requires an amendment, which the so-called "Saxbe fix" is not.

Do you believe the Saxbe fix follows the intent of the founding fathers? If you don't, please explain.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the basis for the whining was quite a bit more substantial than 8 years ago given the circumstances.

Just because statements are the same (____________ stole the election) doesn't mean the reasoning behind the argument is equally valid.

delete the "than"

Ryan2065: Do you believe the Saxbe fix follows the intent of the founding fathers? If you don't, please explain.

Perhaps the intent, yes, but that's not dispositive of the constitutional issue. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition in place and if it is a problem, the way to solve it is via amendment, not some statutory patch. For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

Uh, I thought that laws intent was to keep people from benefiting from legislation they passed, not to keep people from office. So she can take the office constitutionally as long as she takes it at the previous salary. Not that I would expect that she would be taking it for the money anyway.

Nabb1: For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

maybe we can bend the commerce clause to fix it. it fixes everything!

Nabb1: For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

Wait. Did you really just compare human slavery to the Emoluments Clause?

John Paul Jones: Wait. Did you really just compare human slavery to the Emoluments Clause?

yes, that's just what he did. Nabb1 is a known slaveholder and literalist who would certainly not use a simple thought experiment in a civil debate.

OMG the WSJ cares about the US Constitution now??!! Why didn't it care about the Constitution at all for the last eight years when much more egregious violations were taking place?

Nabb1: Perhaps the intent, yes, but that's not dispositive of the constitutional issue. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition in place and if it is a problem, the way to solve it is via amendment, not some statutory patch.

I'm a firm believer that we should follow the intent of the founding fathers instead of what was written.

Nabb1: For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

That was a different situation. Can you honestly say the founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery with the constitution as they wrote it?

Dr. Rosenrosen: Why didn't it care about the Constitution at all for the last eight years when much more egregious violations were taking place?

Therein lies the problem with being too partisan. When a legitimate issue comes up you have no credibility.

John Paul Jones: Nabb1: For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

Wait. Did you really just compare human slavery to the Emoluments Clause?

No, of course not. What I am saying is even when the issue is so patently obvious that the Constitution still must be amended, then certainly any other provision in the document would require changing by the same method. Every change to any requirement or method of electing other officials, e.g. term limits for President, election of Senators, has required an amendment. This is no different. The Constitution sets a specific bar in place and to get rid of it, you have to change the Constitution, not do some attempt at an end run around it.

Ryan2065: Nabb1: Perhaps the intent, yes, but that's not dispositive of the constitutional issue. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition in place and if it is a problem, the way to solve it is via amendment, not some statutory patch.

I'm a firm believer that we should follow the intent of the founding fathers instead of what was written.

Well, that's your opinion, and I might agree with that reasoning in less explicit provisions, but this one is pretty clear, and I disagree with your opinion, based on my own experience.

Nabb1: For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

That was a different situation. Can you honestly say the founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery with the constitution as they wrote it?

Some did. But, the issue was so controversial that a moratorium on the slavery issue is expressly set forth in the Constitution itself that prohibited Congress from taking up the issue for twenty years after ratification. The Founders knew even then that feelings on the issue were so strong it could have wrecked the republic in its infancy.

vcs71: Uh, I thought that laws intent was to keep people from benefiting from legislation they passed, not to keep people from office. So she can take the office constitutionally as long as she takes it at the previous salary. Not that I would expect that she would be taking it for the money anyway.

That's the way I read it too.

Reading the clause again, it would seem that its intent was to keep elected officials from creating a position and then taking the job and the salary, or to increase the pay of an existing position and then taking it at the higher pay. I would agree it would be unconstitutional for her to become secretary of homeland defense period since that position did not exist before. I would also agree that it would be unconstitutional for her to take Sec of State at the higher pay that she voted on. I do not see the intent of her being prevented from the office.
When was the last time they increased the presidents pay? If you want to be strict about it wouldn't it prevent a federally elected official from being able to hold the office if they voted on a pay raise?

Nabb1: Some did. But, the issue was so controversial that a moratorium on the slavery issue is expressly set forth in the Constitution itself that prohibited Congress from taking up the issue for twenty years after ratification. The Founders knew even then that feelings on the issue were so strong it could have wrecked the republic in its infancy.

So you agree with me then! The founding fathers did not intend to abolish slavery with the constitution. So how again can you use this example when the reasoning behind the constitutional amendment to ban slavery was completely different than the reasoning for the Saxbe fix?

vcs71: When was the last time they increased the presidents pay? If you want to be strict about it wouldn't it prevent a federally elected official from being able to hold the office if they voted on a pay raise?

The provision has nothing to do with elected officials. Secretary of State is an appointed position.

Ryan2065: So you agree with me then!

No, I don't.

The founding fathers did not intend to abolish slavery with the constitution. So how again can you use this example when the reasoning behind the constitutional amendment to ban slavery was completely different than the reasoning for the Saxbe fix?

The reasoning is not the issue. The fact is that the Saxbe fix is not a Constitutional amendment. Is there something I am not making clear on that?

I find the Saxbe fix to be dubious at best, because the Constitution says the person cannot be appointed to an office, not simply "cannot be paid the higher salary." Even if she were paid the lesser salary, she'd still be appointed to an office that had an increase in salary.

How does the Saxbe fix address that? Or is that distinction just glossed over?

/Not a Constitutional scholar

lexnaturalis: I find the Saxbe fix to be dubious at best, because the Constitution says the person cannot be appointed to an office, not simply "cannot be paid the higher salary." Even if she were paid the lesser salary, she'd still be appointed to an office that had an increase in salary.

How does the Saxbe fix address that? Or is that distinction just glossed over?

That is precisely the problem. It doesn't address it. The distinction is just glossed over.

lexnaturalis: How does the Saxbe fix address that?

They are appointed to an office that doesn't have the higher salary anymore. So, the person isn't taking an office where they voted for a higher salary. The idea works given what the founding fathers probably intended, but the salary was still raised...it was just corrected at a later time.

The Judiciary committee came up with this solution in 1909, so short of finding someone with standing that can take it to the Supreme Court...the only recourse would be to have Congress just not appoint her.

Excessive emollients can keep you out of orifice.

Ryan2065: Nabb1: For heaven's sake, if something as brazenly hideous as slavery required a constitutional amendment to change, then something like this does, too.

That was a different situation. Can you honestly say the founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery with the constitution as they wrote it?

I'm 3/5 sure they did not

bulldg4life: lexnaturalis: How does the Saxbe fix address that?

They are appointed to an office that doesn't have the higher salary anymore. So, the person isn't taking an office where they voted for a higher salary. The idea works given what the founding fathers probably intended, but the salary was still raised...it was just corrected at a later time.

The Judiciary committee came up with this solution in 1909, so short of finding someone with standing that can take it to the Supreme Court...the only recourse would be to have Congress just not appoint her.

Congress doesn't appoint SOS. It confirms. In any event, here is the question: if you see the conflict and the Constitutional problem, are you fine with the Constitution being potentially violated in this instance?

Nabb1: Congress doesn't appoint SOS. It confirms.

That's what I meant. They could vote to not confirm it.

In any event, here is the question: if you see the conflict and the Constitutional problem, are you fine with the Constitution being potentially violated in this instance?

If she takes the position at the pre-2000 salary or whatever it is, then yes. Because she's not taking the position at the increased salary. And, given the intent of the founding fathers, it doesn't cause the conflict of interest that they were hoping to avoid.

I view it as abiding by the Constitution instead of skirting it with cool hand-waving.

omg...I am ok with the Constitution being violated!

Nabb1: In any event, here is the question: if you see the conflict and the Constitutional problem, are you fine with the Constitution being potentially violated in this instance?

It's dangerous to be okay with efforts to bypass the constitution just because your ox isn't being gored this time. What about next time, when your ox is on the block?

bulldg4life: omg...I am ok with the Constitution being violated!

Fair enough. So, if the President takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, by violating it in this fashion, would you also agree that he is not acting in accordance with his oath of office, and are you okay with that as well?

Nabb1

Do you object to affidavits being used in trials?

Yes, I think Obama should be impeached as soon as he appoints her to be Secretary of State.

albo: It's dangerous to be okay with efforts to bypass the constitution just because your ox isn't being gored this time. What about next time, when your ox is on the block?

So shouldn't we get all up-in-arms about the unlawful imprisonment in guantanamo while we're getting all constitutional again?

Obdicut: Nabb1

Do you object to affidavits being used in trials?

What is the relevance of that to this discussion?

bulldg4life: Yes, I think Obama should be impeached as soon as he appoints her to be Secretary of State.

No, you don't. Be honest. If you don't want to answer the question honestly, then say so. I'm genuinely curious.

Dr. Rosenrosen: So shouldn't we get all up-in-arms about the unlawful imprisonment in guantanamo while we're getting all constitutional again?

That's different. There's a gray area there because it's a national security problem and we can't release some information in open court and we have no place to release the innocent prisoners.

Gray area. Only available sometimes.

Nabb1: What is the relevance of that to this discussion?

The sixth amendment states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;"

Do you object to affidavits being used in trials?

Dr. Rosenrosen: So shouldn't we get all up-in-arms about the unlawful imprisonment in guantanamo while we're getting all constitutional again?

sure thing. have at it. don't forget the patriot act and chicago's gun laws.

Nabb1: No, you don't. Be honest. If you don't want to answer the question honestly, then say so. I'm genuinely curious.

I just said that I view the Saxbe fix as abiding by the Constitution. That would seem to imply that I don't think Obama is violating the Constitution if/when he appoints Clinton to Secretary of State and fixes the salary.

I'm judging it on the intent of the founding fathers and the conflict of interest they were looking to avoid is negated since she won't be benefiting from the salary being increased during her time as a senator.

So, I don't see it as him violating his oath of office.

Obdicut: Do you object to affidavits being used in trials?

so an accused can't then ask that the witness that provided the affidavit be cross examined in court?

bulldg4life: They are appointed to an office that doesn't have the higher salary anymore.

Isn't the office in question that of Secretary of State? If she's appointed as Secretary of State she still has the same office pay notwithstanding. Perhaps I'm overly pedantic, but I think it's dubious to say the "office" in the Constitution is inexplicably linked to pay. I think the office is the same regardless of salary.

albo: sure thing. have at it. don't forget the patriot act and chicago's gun laws.

And prop 8.