Article One, Section 6, 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.”
On December 31, 2009, a foreign service officer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal in a case that argues that Hillary Clinton may not serve as Secretary of State, because she was in the U.S. Senate when the salary of the Secretary of State was increased by Congress. Clinton was a U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 through early 2009. The case is Rodearmel v Clinton, 09-797. The lower court, a 3-judge U.S. District Court, had ruled that the plaintiff does not have standing. The government’s defense has been that in 2009, when Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, that Congress had immediately passed a new bill, lowering the salary of the Secretary of State down to what it had been. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news. The government’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court filing is due February 4.
Rodearmel is represented by Judicial Watch. See its web page here for more about this case.
In the EVIL bad old days in the U.K. Parliament regime the party hacks got appointed to party hack executive offices for voting the way the monarchy regime wanted — aka a de facto bribe for a vote — i.e. one more CORRUPTION method in the EVIL old U.K. regime.
Thus the ANTI-appointment stuff in the U.S.A. and many State constitutions.
What part of the dying gerrymander Constitution is NOT yet DEAD ???
Since the Congress repealed the increase in salary for the Secretary of State in 2008, prior to the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the position, it cannot be saud tha she is taking advantage of an increased salary she may have voted for as a Senator. The hearing of this matter wouold be a waste of time for the Supreme Court, and the only possible reason they would accept this case is pooitical, a reason which the Court is supposed to be above. Or isa it?