Well, Roland, the first problem is the pronoun. Hillary is female yet the Constitution refers to "he". Looks like SHE is eligible since only men in her situation are ineligible.

Is that the kind of fun you were looking for? :)

THAT'S A START. good job.

Decrease the salary back down to the original level. Case closed.

Canyon... Lloyd Benson fell under the same rule and it didn't prevent his cabinet position...I just find it interesting how these things can get started and off we go........weeeeeeeee :)

Had Senator Clinton voted to increase the pay, it might be easier to argue the conflict. Because it was an executive order that increased the pay, it skirts the issue. It is easy to resolve, by simply reducing the pay to start, then increasing it again a few months after taking office.

What I stuggle with, how is Hillary the best choice for this position? It seems like just another Biden-like choice from p-elect BO. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, maybe? If that is foundation of foreign policy, we need to start some duck and cover drills.

Read this earlier on a news website with the stated problem and the fix. This is a non-starter, move on and support the guy, until he actually earns our distrust as president.

Robert Capp

Tom Fitton has had a huge H.O. for the Clintons ever since impeachment. timeslip's post regarding S. o. S. salary increased by executive order as opposed to Hillary voting for it says it all. This non-issue is D.O.A.

I like how we just "disregard the little things" when they are inconvenient to us.

No need for a birth certificate. If someone saw one and it was consistent with the laws of the state, then its good enough for me.

No need to actually follow the language...we can say "hey, it was an executive order so we can ignore it" even though the constitution does not say "unless it was an executive order".

Lets just all say "Nothing to see, lets move on here" and proceed to ignore the constitution.

No R_T, if Hillary Clinton or all of congress for that matter wasn't a participant in the salary increase--there is no conflict of interest, which is the intent of that clause. The clause was a safeguard against corrupting the process. Where is the possibility of corruption if this was the sole perogative of the outgoing President & not by a vote of the legislative body?

The Consitution isn't being ignored here, OK?

BirchBrikers blog was very appropriate for the season. Here is an idea. Why don't we declare a cease fire during the Holidays and instead concentrate on how we can help our fellow men and women and children.

Merry Christmas and all other Holidays celebrated in this time frame.

Have a great day.

An important note. The article doesnt state "...which shall have been created, AND the emoluments whereof shall have been increased..." It says "...which shall have been created, OR the emoluments..." Forget about arguing over the pay. She is in the midts of serving a senators term. As such the constitution clearly states that she cannot be appointed to any civil office until the current term she is serving expires.

Fabricated or not. Whatever it is, Im amazed at how people "interpret" and translate our English language

Oh for God's sake. Sitting senators and representatives have been appointed to cabinet and other Executive Branch posts since the beginning of time. Just give it up, already! Anything for an issue to beat your chest about...no matter how minute or ill considered.

This link http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml will take you to a serious legal blog on this very issue. The original post on the blog is by a conservative who is advocating that Clinton is ineligible for SoS. The comments that follow either pick apart of support his position. There is no "bottom line" but if you read through it the problems for people pushing this issue include:

1) The question of who would be harmed by the action of Clinton becoming SoS (as it relates to the emoluments clause) and can take a case to court. Even if something is blatantly unconstituional there has to be harm before a case can be legally made, and

2) There is precedent for "getting around" this clause (called the "Saxbe" solution for a Republican Senator appointed to an executive branch job during the Watergate era), and

3) There are other precedents of sitting senators or representatives (e.g., Lloyd Bentsen, Hugo Black, and more) getting nonimated, confirmed and appointed to Executive Branch offices even though the "emoluments" of these offices have increased, and finally

4) There are enough questions about the intent and actual wording of the clause to make it very hard to tell whether it applies to Clinton's situation in the first place. In other words, even if a lawsuit were brought and accepted it is likely that the outcome would be a ruling clearly defining the clause as it was intended to be used...to prevent sitting legislators from creating cushy federal jobs for themselves.

But most of all the Supreme Court can reject challenges like this if it perceives the challenge is "politically motivated". I'd like someone -- anyone? anyone? -- to tell me why this isn't a typical Republican witch hunt. In other words, if Bush had appointed Bill Frist to be head of Health and Human Services (he is an MD, by the way) then which conservative posting here would have brought up the emoluments clause and called for Bush to rescind the nomination (assuming the "emoluments" of the HHS secretary had increased)? I'm sure you would have "disregarded the little things" in that situation, no?

Error in my point (3) above: Hugo Black was appointed to the Supreme Court, not the Executive Branch but Judicial Branch appointments appear to also fall under the emoluments clause.

Miuwtant. OMG. LOL. I think I owe you an amends. Please refer back to your very 1st post...I sometimes believe people are more informed than apparently they are. What you just stated I left out of my blog, just to stir the pot, if you will. I'm so sorry. I expected people to understand the jest intended...it's a crazy world we live in.

Happy Holidays

Comncents: Here's a quote from CNS News: "Constitutional scholars agree that the clause’s intent was to prevent corruption – to prevent congressmen from establishing an office or raising the salary of an office and then accepting to occupy that office and reap its enhanced financial benefits. "

Perhaps at the time the clause was created it wasn't envisioned that the Chief Executive would unilaterally raise salaries without approval of Congress. The intent of the clause is not violated here if Clinton becomes S.o.S.--which she certainly will.

Regardless of what a lot of you feel about the Constitution--it IS an evolving document within its intricasies. The founding fathers were wise way beyond who we have in office now, but they weren't psychic.

Newsflash:

The Saxbe solution has been implemented. Time for the Angry Right to stow it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_pay