On January 29, a federal lawsuit was filed by a veteran Foreign Service officer, charging that Hillary Clinton is not eligible to serve as Secretary of State because the pay of that office was raised while she was a U.S. Senator. The case is sponsored by Judicial Watch and is Rodearmel v Clinton, 1:09-cv-171, in D.C. The case was assigned to Judge Reggie Walton.
Art. I, sec. 6, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution says, “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.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
This lawsuit should fail. Before she took the oath, the bill that raised the positions’ pay was recinded.
It all depends on whether the US Constitution should be interpreted literally, or whether the probable motivation for a particular Constitutional provision should be included in the analysis. If the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted literally, then the lawsuit should win.
Even though the pay was rescinded, Sec of State Rice had already received the increase. The clause does not say anything about Clintons pay raise, it only says that if Rice receives a raise, then Clinton and Salazar are ineligable. You can not recind something that already happened.
I didnt like it for Saxby or Benson.
Who appointed the judge?
Judge Walton was appointed by President George W. Bush. Judge Walton is African-American.
Will the regime use the now standard *standing* junk to stop the case ???
I.E. to have an UN-enforceable Constitution for the EVIL monsters in Devil City ???
The Constitution does not read “encreased and remained above what it had been.” It just reads “encreased.” That it was subsequently lower is irrelevant.