■ 08 December 2008 | 5:00 AM
Unconstitutional Clinton
How exciting! President-elect Obama is reaching out to appoint his old political adversary, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state. There's only one problem: The Constitution forbids the new president from making that appointment.
Article I, Section 6, 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.' Although the language is a little archaic, the meaning is clear.
Clinton is the junior senator from New York whose term ends in 2013. Secretary of state is a civil office. There was an increase in the 'emoluments' (i.e., salary) of the office of secretary of state earlier this year during Sen. Clinton's current term. Therefore, the Constitution forbids President Obama from appointing her secretary of state during the remainder of her Senate term.
Does this mean that the new president will find a different secretary of state? Unlikely. President Obama will probably ignore the 'emoluments clause' and make the appointment anyway.
This issue has come up several times in the past, but it rarely deters presidents from making appointments. When President Richard Nixon appointed Ohio Sen. William Saxbe to be attorney general in 1973, he simply reduced the salary to its level before Saxbe began his term as senator, thereby (theoretically) fixing the 'emoluments' problem. Similarly, President Obama could reduce Secretary Clinton's salary to a pre-2007 level.
Unfortunately, the 'Saxbe fix' doesn't work. The secretary of state's salary has increased during Sen. Clinton's term of office, and the Constitution says nothing about the officeholder regaining eligibility if the 'emoluments' go down again.
Clinton is ineligible to be secretary of state until her current term expires. It may be true that the 'emoluments clause' is unenforceable because no one has legal standing to bring a court challenge. But that doesn't eliminate the president's oath to obey the Constitution. Blatantly ignoring the Constitution would not be a very good beginning for the Obama administration, even if he can get away with it. As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama should know better.
Bradley P. Jacob
Virginia Beach
COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Jane
As long as everything is going my way, I don't have a problem. It's when things don't go my way that I have a problem.
Constitutional Law
Isn't the role of Constitutional lawyers to interpret the Constitution, by determining what the framers had in mind when creating the Constitution? Seems to me that the 'intent' of this particular law is obvious . . . as another commentor said, conflict of interest during the voting process. Aren't Constitutional laws circumvented all the time when Constitutional lawyers and professors weigh in on 'intent'?
I agree with you all who said it is interesting that the Professor has suddenly become so worried about the Rule of Law, in respect to the Constitution. Over the past 7 years or so I would guess he hasn't picked up a copy of the Constitution one time - if we are to understand his lack of outrage regarding President Bush's Constitutional knowledge - or, more correctly LACK THEREOF.
Unconstituional Clinton
I don't know which edition of the Constitution Professor Jacob was reading but,the one I read clearly states that Senator Clinton would in fact be allowed to become Secretary of State. She could not remain in the Senate and hold the office of Secretary of State at the same time. So therefore she would have to resign her seat in the Senate (just like the President-Elect did) to accept her new job in the Obama Administration. Mrs. Clinton would then be eligible.
Dave50
Nice false argument
This is merely fodder for the ultra-right wing. There is nothing to this "controversy". This is about as relevant as a "war against christmas".
I think he does
"As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama should know better" Obama's team has indicated that this won't be an impediment. Your letter is just more muck raking. Keep talking though, it makes sensible people realize hate mongering nut cases are still out there
Mr. Jacob is just now...
... concerned about the president "blatantly ignoring the Constitution"? Where have you been these last 8 years?
Picking and choosing.
I do not doubt that if John McCain had been elected and appointed a junior senator or representative Mr.Jacob would never have protested it. Mr. Jacob's real reason for bringing up this issue is purely political and nothing more. I do not doubt that this has been done before in America's past. If Hillary Clinton resigns from her office then accepts the appointment, the issue is rendered completely mute anyway. Mr.Jacob comes across as a sore loser. His behavior this way is rather disturbing for a law professor.
Funny Isn't IT
How the Liberals are always throwing up the fact that they feel the current President is ignoring and violating the Constitution, until it soot’s them to do the same. They know and choose to ignore the fact that the new PRESIDENT ELECT is doing the same thing by appointing Hillary Clinton Illegally to the Office of Secretary Of State which she is not eligible for. President Elect Obama may not be violating the same clauses of the Constitution that the Liberals claim President Bush is, but he is STILL VIOLATING it by appointing Her. Is this how it will work for the next 4 yrs? to do the same thing, break the same laws Liberals say President Bush is doing and call it CHANGE we can Believe in, I think not. I know I will get blasted by the Liberal Obama supporters, but he is doing the same thing and it is fine as long as it is done in the name of their President E
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, tell me how he has violated the first amendment. He is not a congressman passing a law to establish a religion, he is using his free exercise of religion, oh, and he is using free speech. So, again, tell me how the LTE writer violtated the first amendment?
Constitution
I will not argue the constitutional point , but, I would still rather see Hillary Clinton on the news everyday, instead of that horse-face Kerry! The mighty Obama has my support in this decision.