"Good. I never could stand that bitch."

--Corky

Um, that was created during that time. Doesn't that mean that she can't have an office that was created during her tenure as a legislator? I think that's what I saw there.

And then:

"As WND has reported, James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the evils" of corrupt governments in which legislators created salaried positions or increased salary and then secured appointments to the comfortable jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in the colonial and British governments, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice."

Even WND says it: "they just created." Last I checked, the office of Secretary of State has been around for quite a long time...

Bizarre.

Are you people purposefuly dense? This has to do with compensation, not the creatinon of the office of Secretary of State.

Their argument is that while a senator they voted to increase the salary for SecState.

She took the job at the former salary.

If I remember correctly they REDUCED Her Senator wage so there would be no conflict with Her taking the Secretary of States Job.

Larry

Calling Orly Taitz! Calling Orly Taitz!!

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-11-13 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag: The fixation continues as plans for an intervention by friends stymied by lack thereof

She took the job at the former salary.

#5 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Don't get all fact based with these folks, HC. You'll ruin their fantasies.

#8

*shrugs

Just trying to point out that there's more red meat to be found elsewhere.

"James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the evils" of corrupt governments in which legislators created salaried positions or increased salary and then secured appointments to the comfortable jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in the colonial and British governments, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice.

According to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times after Clinton began her second, six-year Senate term in January 2007. On Jan. 1, 2007, the secretary of state's salary increased to $186,600. In 2008, it increased to $191,300, and on Jan. 1, it increased again to $196,700.

These positions were created long ago.

Now if it is with salary--someone posted she kept her same salary.

If that is true, what is the beef?

As for Salazar and McHugh--they were appointed to positions that already existed.

What are their salaries?? The same or more??

That would be a question and should be addressed.

"That would be a question and should have been addressed during their confirmation."

Fixed that fer ya.

I didn't know chicks could hold high office in the first place.

Realistically, this is going nowhere....

"Are you people purposefuly dense? This has to do with compensation, not the creatinon of the office of Secretary of State."

I _said_ I could have misread it. See, watch me admit that I'm not perfect. Can you do the same?

So the lawsuit is about increase? The language is about creation and increase. Or did I misread that too?

And it seems others researched it better than I, and have made some good points.

Yet another windmill to be tilted at by the Don Quixote armchair attorneys on the right.

The Constitution is clear on this, if the salary of the secreatary of state was increased during the time a person was a senator, that senator is then inegible to go be secreatary of state. The fact that the salary was lowered afterward makes no difference. Read the language of the Constitution.

But of course, our courtes being the political institutions they are (even though the are supposed to independent of politics) won't make the right ruling because that would be a huge bombshell and it would embarras Hillary Clinton and President Obama. And god knows, our Constitution being followed to the letter is a secondary concern to these judges who then have to continue living in Washing, D.C. and won't get invited to the right parties any more.

Yep, Liberals just hate windmills, it blocka the nice view of Massachueetts Bay.

I like Judicial Watch. Their bi-partisan muckraking is usually on point. It galls me to no end that our Representatives persistently ignore public interest in favor of private interests. How long has this sentence in our Constitution been ignored? 200 years?

The Constitution is clear on this, if the salary of the secreatary of state was increased during the time a person was a senator, that senator is then inegible to go be secreatary of state. The fact that the salary was lowered afterward makes no difference. Read the language of the Constitution.

I recall reading at the time she was appointed, that there is precendent from several previous administrations, of both parties, allowing the person to serve if they don't take the salary increase.

Not sure on ths.

It does appear that it is a technical violation of the constitution. However the intent of the clause has been preserved by rolling back the "emoluments".

So then we get into is it the letter or the intent of the constitution that matters more.

I would argue that it is the intent not the letter and gun owners that are smart would get behind me. The second amendment has two intents one to allow the states to quickly raise an armed force and one to prevent tyranical government however only one of those is spelled out in the letter. Therefore the intent has always been argued to protect gun ownership.

I recall reading at the time she was appointed, that there is precendent from several previous administrations, of both parties, allowing the person to serve if they don't take the salary increase.

Posted by Redman at 2009-11-14 12:26 PM | Reply

The saxbe fix.

so if its all okay since she makes the prior salary, then IF they raise it again, then what

if the one she gets is ten bucks...and its raised now to 15 bucks, she gets the ten and is okay.
but what if they NOW raise it from 15 to 20??

will she only get the 15 because her vote raised it to the original 15??

okay so its a stretch but we ARE talking about the govnt you know?

Did someone say Orly Taitz?

See p. 9 of the affid on the above link. Pure comedy.

#24 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-11-14 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently, Orly Taitz is good in the sack, but not very adventurous.

I don't know why I find that a little disturbing.

LMAO @ Axiom.

How would you know that?

And given her imagination/creativity, I would hope she'd be excellent in the sack. But what did Wilde say about great artists? Something about them being awfully boring people. (Oops, I'm confusing Wilde with one of his characters. But still.)

How would you know that?

Read page 9 of the Affidavit linked in the post above, as suggested by Montecore.

I actually found your comment funny. But I couldn't find my way to the affidavit--didn't look very hard. No worries.

LUCKILY the US Supreme Court is actually "M-O-R-E" SLEAZY & CORRUPT than the Fuk'n PIECE-Of-SHIT SLIME BAGS known as the Clintons!!!!!!!!

And the fucking idiots in the senate confirmed her perhaps it's time to add an IQ test requirement to holding congressional office.

And the fucking idiots in the senate confirmed her perhaps it's time to add an IQ test requirement to holding congressional office.

#30 | Posted by Constuct

Are we fer this or ag'n it, Dick? I can never be sure till you tell me.

---Bush 2----

You're trying to convince us this was not considered during her initial vetting for the job of Secretary of State? Go back into your mom's basement, and keep on hitting the Cheetos. Idiots.

I think the underlying issue here is the Obama campaign paying off her campaign debt as a pay off for her taking the job.

I wished however - they would have gone after the constitionality of the CZARs or buying the various businesses...that was definitely unconstitutional as is the Hate Speech legislation.