Would appointing Hillary violate the Constitution?
posted at 8:06 am on November 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
According to MS-NBC, appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would cause Barack Obama to violate the Constitution. Does this mean that the Impeach Obama movement has its smoking gun? As it turns out, probably not, since other presidents have violated the Constitution in the same way:
If President-elect Barack Obama nominates Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, many legal scholars believe it would be the former law professor’s first violation of the Constitution as president.
Why? Because the Constitution forbids the appointment of members of Congress to administration jobs if the salary of the job they’d take was raised while they were in Congress. (Article I, Section 6: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office … the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” Emoluments meaning salaries and benefits.)
Congress voted a salary increase for the Secretary of State while Hillary Clinton served in the Senate. Technically speaking, no member of Congress in that session would be constitutionally able to serve in any executive appointments. Picking Hillary would violate one of the original tenets the founders included.
However, Obama would be far from the first President to run afoul of this restriction. Nixon appointed William Saxbe to be Attorney General under similar circumstance, while Jimmy Carter appointed Ed Muskie to the same position Hillary will fill. Her husband appointed Lloyd Bentsen to run Treasury in the last such instance. No one ever proposed impeachment or a disqualification for these appointments, all of whom took their offices without much controversy at all.
Still, the intent of the founders is clear, and not something to shrug off so lightly. They wanted to keep Congress from creating cushy sinecures for them to occupy when a friendly President took office. The attraction of power, cash, and cronyism would lead to corruption and a permanent political class that would cease answering to the electorate. The question should get asked, or Congress should amend the Constitution if no one wants to enforce that restriction any longer.
Update: Be sure to read the article I linked. The so-called Saxbe fix sets the compensation to the point before its raise, which allowed Congress to ignore the Constitutional bar — but that’s not a remedy that meets the clear language of the Constitution itself. The Saxbe fix would have to appear as an amendment in order to get around the explicit ban on members of Congress serving under those circumstances, and that’s probably not a bad amendment to propose, given everyone’s inclination to ignore the rule.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I expect Hopechangy to honor his commitment to change the way Washington works. That means following the constitution to the letter.
csdeven on November 26, 2008 at 8:11 AM
We have a President-Elect whose background has more holes in it than swiss cheese and could not normally get security clearance to do anything, and we’re worried that Hillary’s appointment might be against the Constitution? The real worry with Hilliary is that she is as inexpeienced in her upcoming position as Barry is in his.
To quote beththebaker: Oy Vey!
kingsjester on November 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Great, he enters competition with Nixon and Carter…just what he wants.
If there was ever a losing argument it is this…”Well, Nixon did it”…
Second biggest loser argument…”Carter did it”.
right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Just feathering the nest for the obnoxious hen.
whitetop on November 26, 2008 at 8:13 AM
I heard it was illegal to wear a hat on Wednesdays in Kentucky.
Dave Rywall on November 26, 2008 at 8:14 AM
What about Richardson taking over Commerce? Is it the money or the cronyism coming under fire?
chunderroad on November 26, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Please.
We all know the Constitution is an imperfect, racist document written by slave-holders and native American killers that means nothing as it continues to exists throughout the ages.
It is dated and needs to “breathe.”
Let Obama do what he wants. He won the election, after all. He should be able to rip the thing in half if he decides in it’s in your best interest.
Good Lt on November 26, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Nixon and Carter…Obama really is in elite company before being sworn in.
The Dean on November 26, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Besides – Obama is a constitutional scholar, people.
A SCHOLAR.
Good Lt on November 26, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Idiot troll…
loudmouth883 on November 26, 2008 at 8:17 AM
I know for a fact, it’s cowardly and completely gutless, to be a liberal.
Even in the state of delusion.
rightside on November 26, 2008 at 8:19 AM
drywall: yes, lots of stupid laws on the books. but they don’t directly violate the Constitution.
There is absolutely nothing bambi won’t do to screw America. this is a small thing.
kelley in virginia on November 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Can’t let a little thing like the Constitution stop this administration, let alone a Clinton. Its only the start folks.
johnnyU on November 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM
For a constitutional law professor, he sure doesn’t seem to know his way around the law.
Since when do they care about what the electorate wants anymore anyway? We are just the means to an end.
I, for one, am sick of being a doormat.
tru2tx on November 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Yeah, stupid constitution and its silly rules.
RightOFLeft on November 26, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Your “insinecurity” is showing, troll. How’s Canada today? Lots of hunters killing lots of furry creatures, I hope. New Conservative government moving in. Does Canada celebrate Thanksgiving?
AubieJon on November 26, 2008 at 8:25 AM
The law is the law. Notice it was only two democraps (a dim-wit and an impeached lecher) and a disgraced republican who defied our Constitution.
If she is confirmed, it’s strike one against “that One”.
Zorro on November 26, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Has anyone considered that this is the setup to rid the left of the Clinton stain. get Hill to quit her senate seat then say “Woops sorry we can’t give you this job it’s forbidden by the Constitution. Good luck on your new life”
Gwillie on November 26, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Admit it. You’re just trying to stick me with her for four more years.
Bastard.
Jazz Shaw on November 26, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Just trying to contain the damage to one state …
Ed Morrissey on November 26, 2008 at 8:35 AM
WOW you’re scary. Don’t actually think much do you?
So, by that same logic…Say that his decision is that after a terrorist attack on mainland soil, he declares that the attack was justified by the actions of the Bush administration, and does nothing in the interest of fostering improved relationships with Islamic nations. The nation uprises in anger, he delcares that the constitution needs suspension, declares martial law, confiscates all of our weapons and any means of defending ourselves.
This is OK? Because he should be able to rip up the constitution if he decides this is in my best interest.
Or even better yet for illustrating your stupidity…
Would it have been OK for Chester Arthur to tear the document in half because he felt it was in the nations best interest to reinstate slavery after he won the 1880 election? Winning the election is what is important right? (This is a rhetorical point only, not based in understanding Arthur’s beliefs)
Could you be any more of a tool? There is a reason that all public servants are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. IT is what guarantees your right to be a complete idiot. Don’t like it, go live somewhere else and see how well that works for you. I will hold Obama to the constitution, as should the rest of America.
Do your history, the document isn’t racist, it was written to form a union at a time when the states disagreed on slavery. It was written with the foresight to amend the document as needed.
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 8:45 AM
How about taking the job at the old rate of pay? I don’t think she’s there for the money.
Tzetzes on November 26, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Personally, I’d like to see Hils as Sec of State just for the humor value when she goes a different way then Barry wants to go.
However, it is rather funny that Mr. Constitutional Scholar Obama doesn’t seem to know that it is against the Constitution to appoint her.
William Teach on November 26, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Someone rush this guy a sarcasm detector ASAP!
Snowed In on November 26, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I think Good Lt’s sarc tag is broken.
tru2tx on November 26, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Marine_Bio:
He was channeling a moonbat and forgot the /sarc tag.
The parodies are pretty easy to write, aren’t they? ;)
fluffy on November 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Oops,
I got too carried away on my rant. Arthur took over after Garfield was assassinated. The concept remains the same, but in choosing my obscure president I chose the president poorly.
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Win, Place & Show!
fluffy on November 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Congress can’t amend the Constitution.
Mr. Bingley on November 26, 2008 at 8:54 AM
How about pro-bono, at least we would get a more accurate return on our investment.
thomasaur on November 26, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Sorry, I’ll take your word that was sarcasm. I guess I hadn’t put the sword away from dealing with an idiot/troll on the gray lady should eat crow thread. Too many trolls, apologies to the Good LT for venting my spleen.
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM
The restriction on the appointment is effective only “during the Time for which he was elected” (i.e., the term) in which the raise took place and only for the offices for which there is an increase in compensation. So, technically speaking, the general statement is incorrect, unless there was a general raise for all executive appointments since 2007 (which there could have been). If, then, the vote for the raise for Secretary of State took place during her first term (prior to 2007), then the issue is moot. Otherwise, the means by which this issue has been side-stepped in the past is that the nominee agrees to serve at the previous level of compensation, which I anticipate Clinton will agree to do.
msyb on November 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM
I just applied for a job as a web developer and if hired I and my family are required to pass background checks and I polygraph exams. I was really disgusted by this because my president elect couldn’t pass the background check for a pistol permit in my state. How is it that I have to have polygraph tests for loyalty while that guy gets a complete pass with automatic top secret clearance? Shouldn’t a basic level background check be required for any politician that will be exposed to state secrets?
jmarcure on November 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Moron.
Viper1 on November 26, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Didn’t someone invent a procedure to “fix” this problem a long time ago? Namely, if the Member of Congress is slated to be appointed to a Civil Office, then Congress votes to revoke the pay increase that the Member voted for… Thus making it as if the pay increase never happened.
Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 9:05 AM
The appointment of Her Majesty violates my gag reflex, at least.
I’m all for a strict reading of the Constitution, so it will be a bit disturbing to see the Left brush this off as patent nonsense. If I had the power, she wouldn’t have the position.
The Dean on November 26, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Must be some way we can blame this on the evil Bush.
Del Dolemonte on November 26, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Constitution? What Constitution? http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
katy on November 26, 2008 at 9:17 AM
I would prefer the DC republicans focus their attentions on pointing fingers at Dodd, Frank and the rest of the corrupt.
Socmodfiscon on November 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix
logis on November 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Same as Billy Clintoon. Neither of them would be able to obtain the LOWEST security clearance, but there they sit with their finger on “The Button”.
Sleep well.
oldleprechaun on November 26, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Let’s give Hillary a pass on this one. Since she said that Obama’s foreign policy proposals (like sitting down for a heart-to-stone talk with Ahmanutjob and invading Pakistan) were “dangerous and naive”, she would probably do a better job than an Obama puppet. Or at least, she wouldn’t screw it up as badly. If she is Secretary of State, there’s always Bill whispering in her ears, and he’s a known quantity relative to foreign policy.
Steve Z on November 26, 2008 at 9:23 AM
A fairly easy way around the issue. Thanks for clarifying, msyb.
Though that doesn’t resolve the question whether we want as Secretary of State a woman who imagined she was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia when all she was doing was shaking hands in a reception line.
MrLynn on November 26, 2008 at 9:23 AM
…would lead to corruption and a permanent political class
Would lead??? Where the hell have you been, Ed?
SKYFOX on November 26, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Maybe he’s taking constitutional advice from Mr. Article I Biden?
Abby Adams on November 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Well, you could always try to appeal bring this issue before the Supreme Court. It would be amusing to hear the opinions of the Justices if they were to take the case.
Rywall makes a valid point, even if you disagree with it. Perhaps, some people should wait for a more substantive disagreement to insult Rywall. It’s ill-tempered and puerile to attack Rywall just because he posts.
thuja on November 26, 2008 at 9:38 AM
well according to him the Constitutional is the fundamental flaw of the country … so he can just do whatever he wants
good lord … what kind of person did the American people just elect as President
shameful
joey24007 on November 26, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Now that article lays the logic of why this should be examined neatly. It really is a curiosity that you look at and don’t dare to spend too much time on because of the tinfoil hat brigade. I jumped in on this when there was whining over the Berg case, simply on the basis that in my opinion, Berg was correct to ask the questions and has a right to do so. I was very disturbed with the decision that he lacked standing under the constitution to ask the question. (You know, it does start with WE, The people) With any sanity in the US Supreme Court, the electoral college members who have filed suit will be deemed as having the standing to ask this question, and Obama will have to hand over the documents so this insanity goes away.
In all it is very strange, but definitely has the potential to be very destructive if he has some kind of constitutional problem…
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Ed, see the GPO’s annotated copy of the Constitution, p. 141:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf
So just give Hillary the job, but at the salary the post had before she voted on increasing pay for cabinet members. Problem solved.
radjah shelduck on November 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Yeah, we sure wouldn’t want that to happen, would we?
James on November 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM
I will continue to support Obama as long as he protects my constitutionally guaranteed right to same sex marriage. (It’s in article 27, section 183, paragraph 19.)
snaggletoothie on November 26, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Well, the whole discussion is not just for nutters anymore. I’d like to know the truth. That’s all. Then we can move on.
katy on November 26, 2008 at 10:06 AM
ha ha Obama worried about the constitution. At least we don’t have to worry about that. My girl is going to run the country from state.
kanda on November 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Hm.
My kid wasn’t making curfew time, so I figured I’d change the curfew till later. Problem solved, right?
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2008 at 10:09 AM
They’ll Rationalize it… Sinners ALWAYS rationalize their sin…. I mean…. I hear the rational that Obama was right to STEAL the election was because Bush STOLE the election from algore….OY!
CynicalOptimist on November 26, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Getting Clinton’s staff cleared was nightmare for the Secret Service. If they weren’t associated with him, they’d never have been allowed within a hundred yards of a secure facility.
logis on November 26, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Yes – it violates the constitution
And the Saxbe fix is Potemkin – but there is something
to be gained here: the job puts her ahead of Pelosi
in the succession.
And that’s worth a lot.
Paul Murphy on November 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Why all the hoopla?
Who do you think is holding the best hand here? (Hint-it isn’t Obama)
Obama’s entire run at the White House was a stage managed, choreographed play. In order for his Presidency to work, he has to continue the facade of confidence, of being in charge, a leader.
Hillary can do much damage to the Obama facade by saying yes, (sandbagging him), and then saying no-she doesn’t want to be tied to a loser administration.
I think HClinton could do this in a heartbeat if she still has aspirations for 2012.
No one is perfect, we all make mistakes, but if Obama doesn’t have the strength of character to admit to mistakes, pride is going to lead him (and him lead us) down a bad road. We don’t know if he has any humility in him, as we’ve never yet seen the real Obama.
Doug on November 26, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Hillary is not fit for that job. He was a fool for asking her for that position. If one thinks that she will hold on to this job. Think again. I do believe that The Dictator has a reason. When she bails from the Senate, he will wait a while. Then fire her. He has a vendetta against Bill, and Hillary. I do believe he wants to end both of their Political careers. Which they both suck at. Now, if only Dec. 5th comes and both Justices promises to do what they said. He isn’t a US citizen. No Hillary for 2012! She would be a disastrous in office, Especially as the Pres.
sheebe on November 26, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Yep. Wonderful rationale. Let’s amend the Constitution in all those ways that we just can’t be bothered with any more.
Being an American is simply too tiresome and hard. If it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, I’m not interested.
How about a 28th Amendment? “Congress shall have the power to do stuff’n’shit”
Let’s just leave it at that and never have to worry about thinking for ourselves ever again.
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Nice analogy.
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 10:29 AM
For what it is worth, Hillary is a much safer pick then others that think more like Barry. She may be a hard core liberal, but, she is certainly tougher on foreign policy then The Messiah.
Get her out of the way, and you could end up with a massive Bill Ayers type liberal, much like when Harriet Myers was nominated for the USSC, Conservatives went ballistic, then we ended up with a great conservative.
William Teach on November 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Let’s just leave it at that and never have to worry about thinking for ourselves ever again.
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Perfect words! This is what the Libs want, they cannot think for themselves. Liked your full post also. Is amazing how some do think. Empty minds, robots.
sheebe on November 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Get her out of the way, and you could end up with a massive Bill Ayers type liberal, much like when Harriet Myers was nominated for the USSC, Conservatives went ballistic, then we ended up with a great conservative.
William Teach on November 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM
This is a good point! Unfortunately, I don’t think Hill, will have the position for to long. The One has an agenda for her. Even before they both announced they were running. There was bad blood between The One and Bill. But, you make sense in what you are saying.
sheebe on November 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM
That would require him to understand we are a Republic, not a democracy.
Rambler on November 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM
And to read the Constitution at least once.
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM
We are concerned about this? There are bigger violations of the Constitution I’m worried about, like the Federal spending bills and the federal government involved in education.
Tim Burton on November 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM
The Saxbe Fix has precedent. I doubt SCOTUS would rule against it, although they might grant cert. just so they could rule in its favor.
If Congress were smart, they’d write language into the USC that specifies that the compensation for a particular position is automatically lowered to what it was the day the Senator or Representative began the final term of office, and remains so reduced until the expiration of that term, so long as the office is occupied by someone in Congress when the pay was increased.
Think of it as a penumbra of an emnation. Of a shadow.
The Monster on November 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
“USC” = United States Code, not (Constitution.)
The Monster on November 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
…of a whisper, of a myth, of a place once known as America.
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I completely understand your frustration, but there’s a good reason why we DON’T require this for a Presidential candidate: it would place entirely too much power in the hands of the (unelected) official deciding whether the clearance is approved. That individual would have veto power over the expressed will of the people.
Think about it: with running for POTUS in 2012, do you want a DOD led by a post-Gates Obama appointee deciding your candidate’s fitness for office?
This is the same reason we can’t have a “civics test” as a qualification for voting, as much as i like the idea in principle. It vests too much power in the person who makes the test.
RegularJoe on November 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Dude, know your enemy. He knows it; he’s TAUGHT it. The problem isn’t that he doesn’t know it. The problem is that he thinks it is fundamentally flawed.
Knowing and respecting are two different things.
RegularJoe on November 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I agree completely.
I disagree that he ‘knows’ the Constitution. I think he’s a fraud. A charlatan. He cannot converse coherently on Consitutional issues. He’s an affirmative-action joke – the blackest of humor, perhaps?
I dread to think what crap he blithered on about to his students. It evidently was not a long-lived career, much like everything else he does – a fly-by-night carpetbagger.
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I don’t know if it violates the Constitution, but it sure violates our sensibilities.
Done That on November 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
That’s like saying Romney spent 45 million to get a job that pays 0.4 million. It ain’t about the money with Hillary, save your ammo.
hanzblinx on November 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Oh, time to get a life! The workaarund is a no brainer. Hillary resigns from the Senate, then gets the appointment to SOS.
droofus on November 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I was unaware that has yet to happen.
Didn’t that happen a long time ago?!
Badger40 on November 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Fixed it for ya Ed.
Badger40 on November 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Oops. Just noticed some of my message was swallowed up as a tag. It should have read
Sorry for any confusion.
RegularJoe on November 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM
He’s not even president yet and the training wheels are already falling off his wagon. Yipee, maybe we can impeach him before he even takes the oath.
Alden Pyle on November 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Agreed on the power piece, but there is a simple solution. Do it with everyone before the primaries. If all possibilities qualify, there is not an issue. If a candidate fails to qualify, there would be no difference to the POTUS, it just wouldn’t be that person.
It isn’t a huge burden to qualify for president, i.e. no matter how much you like Arnold Schwarzenegger he can never be president because he’s Austrian by birth, so it would seem to be a sensible addition, since this is a very different situation than what the founding fathers could have imagined.
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Here’s another breach of our Constitutional ideals:
http://www.wyfb.org/
A tax on dairy cows, beef cows, & pigs! Please read this folks. If you like to eat, then you should care about this hijacking of the taxation process.
The EPA is proposing a rules change to charge anyone who raises these animals a yearly tax to help combat carbon emissions.
My husband & I are ranchers & we are already hit hard by non-enforcement of anti trust law, stockyard & packers act etc. NOW they want to charge us ~$88/beef cow!
Let me tell you- every calf we sell in the fall only brings lately an average of $1.06/pound for steers & that’s top market price lately.
You like your hamburgers? Bacon? Ham? Milk products?
Help us out & complain to the EPA about this crap. Comment period for them ends today I think.
Badger40 on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I can get to work faster if I just run all the red lights, and I can have more money for the economy if I don’t pay any of my taxes. Should be ok, right? sure.
WTF are laws for? If she can’t qualify, she doesn’t qualify. Don;t be using this to distract from Obama’s eligibility to have the election certified either. Thats still an issue unresolved, or do all the rules just apply to Republicans and non-blacks?
johnnyU on November 26, 2008 at 12:05 PM
What about the question of Bill’s finances and money he has taken from foriegn governments that she, Hillary, might have to deal with as Sec. of State?
…………… Will Mr. Obama, President Elect, the Office of decide to ignore that “law” as well?
Seven Percent Solution on November 26, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I find it simply fascinating that MSNBC would suddenly be concerned about constitutional compliance after completely ignoring, (along with all MSM) the Obama citizenship issue. The Donofrio case currently sits with the SCOTUS for discussion and review by all nine SC justices on Dec 5th. Never mind if you think the eligibility issue is hooie. The fact that it has reached the SCOTUS for consideration is newsworthy by itself, yet not a friggen word anywhere. I would include this blogg also, which, normally is leading edge on news. Here we are 9 days away from the SCOTUS deciding to engage themselves in what could be the most controversial decision in the history of the Union, and nobody wants to talk about it. What gives?
Syd B. on November 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Unless, of course, you’re a liberal, in which case the Constitution is a “living document” that gets reinterpreted with the changing needs of each new moment.
Ugh.
irishspy on November 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Who commits the violation…the President making the appointment, or the Senate which confirms it?
Blaise on November 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Surely I’m not alone in having noticed there have been NO Republican Prez’s that did this.
Sigh.
pambi on November 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Not if qualifying for the security clearance was required to become a candidate in the first place…well before a single vote was cast.
Doing it afterward just wastes everybody’s time.
James on November 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM
That may simply be luck rather than judgement ;)
LimeyGeek on November 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Past Presidents bypassed this clause by rolling back the appointees pay rate. However, it is still an open question as to whether or not such a move is constitutional. Meese, under Reagan, reversed the trend and stated that simply cutting the Congresspersons pay rate when appointed was a violation of the spirit of the clause. And as far as I know the issue has never been adjudicated.
NotCoach on November 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Here’s another breach of our Constitutional ideals:
http://www.wyfb.org/
A tax on dairy cows, beef cows, & pigs! Please read this folks. If you like to eat, then you should care about this hijacking of the taxation process.
The EPA is proposing a rules change to charge anyone who raises these animals a yearly tax to help combat carbon emissions.
My husband & I are ranchers & we are already hit hard by non-enforcement of anti trust law, stockyard & packers act etc. NOW they want to charge us ~$88/beef cow!
Let me tell you- every calf we sell in the fall only brings lately an average of $1.06/pound for steers & that’s top market price lately.
You like your hamburgers? Bacon? Ham? Milk products?
Help us out & complain to the EPA about this crap. Comment period for them ends today I think.
Badger40 on November 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Can you tell me where to go and raise hell about this? I went to the site, but couldn’t find where to voice my opinion. This is making me mad as hell. So, they are tying to starve us too!
sheebe on November 26, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Pambe, please read the article again. Nixon appointed William Saxbe to be Attorney General under similar circumstances.
jim m on November 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Sheebe,
Comments on proposed rulemakings are always open to the public, and always posted in the federal register. I was going to comment on this, which is an basically taking the clean air act and placing it on steroids by adding CO2 and other greehouse gases to the list of regulated emissions. This is what Badger40 was talking about. There are instructions at the link I’ve provided to comment.
EPA Propose Rule Making comments
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Oh and one thing I forgot Sheebe, comments close Friday.
Marine_Bio on November 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »