Guest Blog by Sharon Anderson
Most of our readers are probably aware that questions have been raised and suits filed because Obama has failed to produce a birth record to prove that he is a “natural born citizen” of the US and, therefore, actually eligible to be the President of the US. The main stream media have been silent on this issue, and I expect that Obama will be inaugurated without ever proving his Constitutional eligibility for this office.
Now some maintain that, according to Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution, Hillary Clinton is ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton states that “. . . putting by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we’re confident it will be here too.” It will be interesting to see if the effort is even made to reduce the salaries in question thus making it appear that the Constitution is being followed, or if this issue, too, will be ignored.
Apparently Reines believes those who take the Constitution seriously “are fringe groups.” Can we believe that those who will swear to uphold and defend the Constitution in January even understand and respect what this founding document says, or will they further shred it in favor of political expediency? How many Americans will even ask such “frivolous” questions?
Is Clinton Ineligible to Join the Cabinet?
By Peter Baker
Updated | 11:30 p.m. CHICAGO – Senate Democrats were working Tuesday to put together legislation making it possible forto become secretary of state despite a constitutional clause that some critics argue should bar her from joining the cabinet.
The issue may seem esoteric but it generated attention Tuesday among legal scholars and bloggers arguing over whether it would be unconstitutional for Mrs. Clinton to serve as’s secretary of state because the salary for her new office was increased while she served in the Senate.
Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that made a name for itself investigating the Clinton administration in the 1990s, raised the matter Tuesday with a statement asserting that Mrs. Clinton was ineligible to become secretary of state because of the so-called “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution. By the end of the day, Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, was consulting with Republican colleagues in hopes of putting together a bill to address the issue.
The issue stems from Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution, which 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 increased during such time.” Emoluments refers to compensation.
After Mrs. Clinton’s last Senate election in 2006, the salary for secretary of state and other cabinet positions was increased to $191,300 from $186,600. In the past, Congress has gotten around this by passing a resolution cutting the salary for the office at stake back to what it was before the nominee’s most recent election. . . .
, and some legal scholars, argued that the Saxbe fix is insufficient because the constitutional clause says a senator is ineligible if the salary was raised, which it was in this case, even if it is subsequently cut again.
“There’s no getting around the Constitution’s Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires,” said, president of Judicial Watch. “Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of secretary of state and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton’s confirmation.”
, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she and Mr. Obama had anticipated the issue and were prepared to resolve it. “This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,” he said. “But putting by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we’re confident it will be here too.”