Bait & Switch?
on 12/04/2008 at 02:56 PM
So, Barack knows about the emoluments constitutional problem yet he appoints someone that is ineligible. One of two things is going on here. Either he is consciously doing everything he can to violate the constitution or He cynically made the appointment in order to curry favor within his party, knowing that the appointment would NOT be upheld during the confirmation process.
Haven’t I said something somewhere about “All enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC”? Sounds to me like this POTUS-elect is proving himself “DOMESTIC”, wouldn’t one surmise?
I haven’t decided yet. Do I say that the worst part about being cynical is how often you’re right, in response to this posting, or do I save it for one of the others?
Please pardon me, I’ve got to throw up before I continue commenting.
Voice of reality here. Nixon got by that requirement by lowering the salary of the office of his pick at the time. Google it for more if you like but it was done in the past and has presidant.
I already commented in another thread why Hillary would be dumb to accept it but she is what she is.As Rich K says, Nixon got around it. I’d be willing to bet others have got either around it, or just relied on public ignorance. Face it, this was something I was not aware of.
Okay, so Nixon lowers the salary, but what did Nixon do about the pension?
My point is this: while we are subjected to all the caterwauling about CEO pay, benefits, and ‘golden parachutes’, I think more attention needs to be focused on the pensions of Federal elected official.
In my opinion, NO elected official should have a pension based on his/her/its elected office. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. You are an elected official.
By definition, a part-time job.
You’ve got it Christopher.
NO elected official should have a pension based on his/her/its elected office. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. You are an elected official.
By definition, a part-time job.
Ah but .... ya hafta take GREED into account.
And ppl will always take advantage if they can. If there needs to be a pension of some kind, it should at least be in the same manner of the rest of the population. Like Social Security. Take a percentage of their pay with the govt. (employer) matching what they can save.
I’m not 100% sure about the part time job though. In theory anyway, they’re supposed to be working many grueling hours on our behalf. (choke, gasp,gag) They can’t very well have a job somewhere and say oh btw boss, I need three or four months off to do some work in DC.Hmmm, been thinking about that last while writing it. You might be right about the part time thing after all.
As for Sen. Byrd. That 2bit bag of hot and false air. Yes, he’s a smart man, so are most con artists. I’m trying to remain clean in my language but I don’t trust him for a minute.
Okay rather than “part-time job” how about if we use the term, “temporary assignment”?
Sure, you may work long hours at it *while you’re working at it*. But the original idea was that you’d work at it until someone else replaced you, AND THEN YOU’D GO BACK HOME TO YOUR REAL JOB. It was never intended to be a career.
’scuse me. I see no reason why Senator Clinton can not serve as Secretary of State...as long as she resigns from her Senate seat once she’s confirmed and sworn in.
Macker
This is what The 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 increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
Three Issues.
1. Shall Not be appointed during the Time for which they were elected.
(Shall NOT be Appointed.) Very simple!2. Shall Not be appointed to an Office that was Created or Wage/Benefits
were increased during their time in office.(You can’t benefit from an office where you could have had an influence on the
creation of or increase in It’s Wage/Benefits during your term in office.)3. No person shall be a Member of Either House During their time in an appointed
office. (You can’t hold two offices at the same time)If you don’t care what The Constitution says I guess you can do anything you want.
The Bill of rights are really just sort of guidelines, Throw them away if you find
them inconvenient. /sarcThis is why ignorant people should not be allowed to vote.
Fortunately Ignorance can be cured, It’s called Education.So “Time for which he was elected” is the real issue. The emolument is secondary?
Even if she resigns the Senate, she can’t be given SoS until her Senate term expires? Or is the term “term” attached to the person and not the position? (no, it’s attached to the position - otherwise the state governor wouldn’t appoint a replacement, there would be an election!)Brilliant!
Damn, those founding fathers were some smart guys alright.
We know Obama’s Prejudice against Guns and Gun owners.
In order to try to simplify this Issue, let me make an analogy to the Purchase of a Firearm under Current Federal Law.
A person has committed a Felony. It has been 15 years from the Time they were convicted and they have met all the conditions of their sentencing, But they have NOT gotten an Expungement.
They are Denied the ability to legally Purchase any Firearm. It’s called a Disability.
They DO NOT meet the requirements.
Hillary DOES NOT meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as Secretary of State
until after her current Senate Term expires.I Don’t care what Nixon did. He was weaseling his way around the Constitution.
So, If some President in the Past Violates the Constitution It’s OK for us to?
Roosevelt Interned a whole lot of innocent Citizens of Japanese Descent, So why don’t we.Funny how things work in the real world huh Swede.Or at least in the world of DC Inc. It is curious that the Byrd man of all people is bringing this up. Maybe this is the OUT O’benothing needs to keep the faithful happy and kick her to the curb at the same time.
BTW, Are we setting a record here for longest comment thread replies to one article? Maybe thats just retorical as Hill Girl does bring out the best in folks huh.Sorry all, I am somewhat Passionate about the Constitution.
If I have tested your patience I appologise. I shall diminish.No problem Swede, this is where we have discussion, or argument in it’s purest form. No name calling, screaming, or various forms of violence, which I qualify as a fight, or redneck stupidity.
I, too am wondering what Byrd is up to. He is a sneaky son of a bitch in the purest form, sons of bitches look up to him.
Maybe he has someone he was grooming for the position, or Obama promised him or a crony a position in private for his support, but reneged. Could this be the first signs of a rift in the Dems? I hope so.. inter-party tussles are bloody, and sooo much fun when you are not involved!
Just a thought,
BillThanks for clearing that up, Swede. I appreciate it. Now I CAN laugh my ass off!
Doc, Byrd was against this when Nixon did it too. He didn’t win that fight. Whatever he may or may not be, at least he seems to understand the Constitution. Besides, what does he have to lose? Like Teddy Kennedy, he’s Senator For Life. And the guy is now 91 years old.
Sorry all, I am somewhat Passionate about the Constitution.
If I have tested your patience I appologise. I shall diminish.
You’ve not tested my patience. We need more folk who are passionate about the Constitution. If you are going to diminish, do NOT do so on this subject.
Sorry all, I am somewhat Passionate about the Constitution.
If I have tested your patience I appologise. I shall diminish.
You’ve not tested my patience. We need more folk who are passionate about the Constitution. If you are going to diminish, do NOT do so on this subject.Posted by Christopher 12/07/2008 at 04:07 AM
Go for it Swede. Christopher is absolutely correct, we need many, many more.
Mismarked my inner quote. Damn we need an edit button.
Sorry all, I am somewhat Passionate about the Constitution.
If I have tested your patience I appologise. I shall diminish.You’ve not tested my patience. We need more folk who are passionate about the Constitution. If you are going to diminish, do NOT do so on this subject.
Posted by Christopher 12/07/2008 at 04:07 AM
Try this again.
12/05/2008 at 09:06 AM
Next entry: Give Me The Big Gun, Baby!
Previous entry: Ramirez! (and a bit of News From The North)