Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/jan/judicial-watch-files-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clinton-appointment-behalf-state-depa

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer
Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- January 29, 2009
Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.

Under the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the "emoluments" of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.

Specifically, article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides, "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 encreased during such time." The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.

According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called "Saxbe fix" last month, reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, allowing notably Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior.

Judicial Watch's lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate . . . ." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.

"This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution
is not to be trifled with," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."
Related Documents

* Statement by Plaintiff David C. Rodearmel and Background Information
* Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Excellent post HP.

Old Timer wrote:Excellent post HP.

Why, thank you, young-at-heart-and-probably-really-only-40-years-old man.

Old Timer wrote:Excellent post HP.

I agree! And I agree with what Judicial Watch is doing, also. The courts will make their decision.

I just hope all concerned can accept the decision, once made.

HotParadox wrote:

Old Timer wrote:Excellent post HP.

Why, thank you, young-at-heart-and-probably-really-only-40-years-old man.

What I wouldn't give to be 40 again. but you really are a dear.

catch-22 wrote:

Old Timer wrote:Excellent post HP.

I agree! And I agree with what Judicial Watch is doing, also. The courts will make their decision.

I just hope all concerned can accept the decision, once made.

I hope so to. But one of the really beautiful things about this country is that we don't have to agree with their decision and we can even contest it if we so desire. There is one thing I have learned in my life and that is that the law might not always be right, but the law is always the law and must be upheld. When the time comes that the law becomes to be a cancer on society then it must be changed and the only way to do that is to do it with the system by fighting within the system by joining it. You cannot defeat the system from the outside except by total destruction of the existing society. Sorry, I didn't mean to ramble on.

That's why so many polititians are lawyers. So they can find the loopholes and ream the people.
But ya'll aready knew that.

Judicial Watch will get her appointment overturned the same day CCR gets Rumsfield tried on war crimes charges.
Anybody want to bet on it? My wallet could use an economic stimuli

catch-22 wrote:

Old Timer wrote:Excellent post HP.

I agree! And I agree with what Judicial Watch is doing, also. The courts will make their decision.

I just hope all concerned can accept the decision, once made.

Thanks, C, for agreeing with OT!

I am posting the below for others here, because although some say otherwise, I have always thought that you are are not of the far-left persuasion, but more of a centrist. If you weren't more of centrist, I doubt that you would be openly agreeing with a conservative site.

"About Us

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people.

Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations and public outreach."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/about.shtml

OK I am game. I'm in for a shiny nickle. I feel reckless today.

thomasjay wrote:Judicial Watch will get her appointment overturned the same day CCR gets Rumsfield tried on war crimes charges.
Anybody want to bet on it? My wallet could use an economic stimuli

Hahaha! No way am I betting against you on this one; unless, of course, you want to switch sides! I agree; it ain't happenin', but I agree with what they are doing. On a bi-partisan level, check them all out, is how I feel.