[xLQLRcXh]

Originally posted by Berzerker
art 1 sec 6

for which he was elected, so she's off the hook

[libertiespana]

That would have raised some interesting interpretive questions had she won the primary and been Prez:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years

So she could have been dictator for life?

[Adimonnna]

Well, in all seriousness the final arbiter of what "he" actually "means" would be the Supreme Court, and the majority is anything but originalist or textualist, so they'd certainly interpret "he" as asexual, especially in a post-election posture where their own legitimacy would be at stake. No worries.

[ZESINTERS]

Unfortunately, we can't bust Hillary's balls on this one, because it has happened too often in the past. They'll just rescind the pay raise.

[vaalmerruutel]

Originally posted by Whoha
If they can show that this is just an inflation adjustment from the last time it was raised then there probably wouldn't be a problem. COLAs dont increase salary? The text doesn't mention any loopholes or exceptions, just says she cant take an office that saw a pay raise during her term in the Senate. Arguing the pay raise aint a pay raise because of inflation is not change we can believe in...

[Gvadelunar]

Puh-leeze. This is such a non-issue that there's actually a name for dealing with it: The Saxbe Fix, named after the senator who ultimately ended up as Attorney General after the Saturday Night Massacre. As others have said, the strategy is to rescind the raise in order to allow a Congressman or Senator to accept an appointment

[JasminBerkova]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That doesn't change the fact the position saw a pay raise while she was a senator. Thats what the Constitution says, and Saxbe was not one of the Framers Right. And nobody ever noticed that before; not when Saxbe was appointed AG, nor when Edmund Muskie became Secretary of State, now when Lloyd Bentsen became Secretary of the Treasury. In spite of the poisonously partisan nature of American politics over the past decades, and in spite of national politics being chock-full of lawyers, the Emolument Clause been a non-issue.

But now I see that's all because it's never been looked at before by internet geeks who've stopped masturbating to porn just long enough to become constitutional scholars! Silly me!

I stand by my previous "Puh-leeze."

[kjanyeaz1]

Actually that's not quite correct. The intent was to prevent patronage of legislators by the executive.

[Kimaamighed]

So what happens if teh pres, vice pres and sec of state get taken out, under your interpretation the leaders of the house and senate can't becaome pres if the pres has been voted a pay rise.

[gMUVgw71]

Originally posted by TheStinger
So what happens if teh pres, vice pres and sec of state get taken out, under your interpretation the leaders of the house and senate can't becaome pres if the pres has been voted a pay rise. Stop bringing logic into this

Btw, Secretary of State isn't in the succession until after the President Pro Tem of the Senate and Speaker of the House.

[RilmAlime67]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Stop bringing logic into this

Btw, Secretary of State isn't in the succession until after the President Pro Tem of the Senate and Speaker of the House. My mistake I always thought they were no 3- does the chief justice come after the sec of state

[xIuvyAuT]

Who cares. Obama is Kenyan.

[grubnismarl]

Of course she's unqualified to be Secretary of State. She should be Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

[Searmoreibe]

Originally posted by TheStinger
So what happens if teh pres, vice pres and sec of state get taken out, under your interpretation the leaders of the house and senate can't becaome pres if the pres has been voted a pay rise. They wouldn't be appointed, I think the line of succession is a different matter

edit: actually the prohibition is on taking civil appointments, not elected office.

[Keeriewof]

Wikipedia and my recollection of the federalist papers disagree with him, then.