Constitution and Popular Consent

So, here is the article (or read in full after the break).

The argument the Republicans have is valid. Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution states the following:

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.

When President Bush signed an executive order increasing certain Cabinet salaries, Hillary Clinton became ineligible since she was in office when the raise took effect. Other political commentators point to exceptions that have been made in the past where Congress reduced that positions salary to its original amount or where the appointee took the lower salary, sidestepping this issue.

At hand are two issues, in my opinion. First, can Constitutional Law be sidestepped? Second, when does popular opinion override the Constitution?

In the case of the former, I believe that you can view it both ways. If you are going to say that, to the letter of the law the Constitution must be upheld, then you are shooting everyone in the foot based on precedent, including judgments made in the past by the US Supreme Court. This could also be argued to foil amendments in the future if such an argument were to stick. Conversely, by allowing it, you open a can of worms that could lead to abuse. Personally, I’m still on the fence regarding this aspect of the argument.

In the latter issue, I believe wholeheartedly that YES, the American people should be allowed (by popular vote) to override Constitutional issues. If we are to truly be a Democratic society (which we admittedly are not… Democratic Republic is not quite the same) then the people’s voice must be heard on ALL issues pertaining to the nation. Of course this brings up issues of when a vote can take place, how it would take place and how secure the methods of voting were. Regardless, I think taking issues such as this directly to the people at large is the absolute best possible option.

Any thoughts?

Clinton’s nomination popular, but is it constitutional?

From Samantha Hayes

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly approve of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but will the founding fathers veto this popular addition to Barack Obama’s “team of rivals”?

Yes, according to one conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution says the following: “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.”

Translation: A lawmaker cannot fill a position if the salary for that position has been raised during that lawmaker’s term in office.

In January, President Bush signed an executive order increasing the salary for the secretary of state and other Cabinet positions by $4,700. Hillary Clinton has been in the Senate since January 2001.

Case closed, says the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.

“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,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. VideoWatch: Bill Clinton talks about his wife’s nomination »

“No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment.”

Not so fast, most legal scholars say.

In the past, lawmakers have found a way around the clause, with Congress changing the salary of the office in question back to what it originally was.

It happened when Ohio Sen. William Saxbe was named President Nixon’s attorney general in 1974 and again when Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen became President Clinton’s Treasury secretary in 1993.

“There are many ways around this problem,” CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted. “One is for Congress to vote a lower salary. Another way is for Hillary Clinton simply to accept a lower salary. Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state. VideoWatch: Analysts weigh in on Clinton pick »

“This is not going to be an impediment to her being secretary of state,” Toobin argued.

One Clinton aide said that both Clinton and Obama were aware of the issue when he announced her as his choice for secretary of state. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office said congressional Democrats are moving forward with a measure similar to what has been done before.

Judicial Watch takes issue with the precedent.

“We think it’s inadequate,” Fitton said. “You can’t amend the Constitution through legislation like that. … The Constitution doesn’t have any caveats. It’s plain as day.”

Fitton pointed to what President Reagan did when facing a similar situation.

“Ronald Reagan took a look at this clause and decided against appointing Orrin Hatch, who was a senator and still is, to the Supreme Court,” he noted.

Whatever the activists, scholars or pundits say, the public has apparently made up its mind.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 1-2 indicated that 71 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s nomination of Clinton as his secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans split evenly on the pick.

CNN’s Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. In MY opinion, the “Saxbe fix” is still not Constitutional. The amendment is very clear as to the person’s ineligibility after a pay raise.

    I don’t understand why nobody has challenged this so-called fix….either that or they did challenge and were rebuffed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.