Skip to main content

View Diary: "Emoluments," Clinton, and That Pesky Constitution (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A legislator should not be able to benefit from a (7+ / 0-)

    pay raise or job creation that his legislative body agreed to.

    Piffle crack eat monkey snow. Really. Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald

    by Susan Grigsby on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  even if they resign prior to accepting? (0+ / 0-)
      •  Even if they resign. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, aaraujo, Flippant, trivium

        The intent was to prevent them from increasing the salary, resigning their legislative position, and assuming the office that they have just helped enrich.  The original ban on revolving door government.

        But I don't think it is a major problem since we have a Democratic majority that can figure out a fix.

        Piffle crack eat monkey snow. Really. Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald

        by Susan Grigsby on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Plus (0+ / 0-)

          it wasn't an act of Congress that increased the pay. She nor any other MOC should not be hamstrung by an Exec. Order.

          Picture this, paint a picture picture perfect, paint a perfect picture.- George Clinton "Paint The White House Black"

          by coachjdc on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It was teh Democrats that voted against (0+ / 0-)

          the fix before. The Constitution is the Constitution.

          It's not like she would starve if she took the lower salary before the raise. That's the easy, strict fix.

          Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living~~Mother Jones

          by CA Berkeley WV on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  IMO, resigning fixes the problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If I were a Supreme Court justice, I'd rule that "during the Time for which he was elected" is satisfied by resigning.

        One of the most famous Supreme Court decisions said "We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding". In other words, the Constitution does not have every detail spelled out in it like a 300 page law would.

        There is no logical reason to assume that the framers intended to block an ordinary citizen, that is, a politician who resigned from holding another office. Once the politician resigns, they lose all leverage and power. If the concern is that the Senator could strike a deal with the President to be appointed to an office after resignation, limiting to the Senator's original term wouldn't be sufficient to prevent this. The framers could have said "by any President who held office while the Representative or Senator was in office".

        •  Yeah, CJ Marshall HAD to take that position, (0+ / 0-)

          since he was inventing a HUGE new court function - the right for the Supreme Court to review the decisions of the lower courts. It was a reasonable extrapolation of what's in the Constitution, but that power is NOT there. Tickles the hell out of me to see the originalists, the "strict construction" guys, fluffin' their feathers over limiting the effects of a law by exactly what the original framers of the Constitution had written, when said strict constructionists are exercising a function found NOWHERE in the Constitution.

        •  except that is already not allowed (0+ / 0-)

          You already can not serve in the legislature and in any other office. Not clear why they would double exclude this act.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site