I was wondering where all the (far right-)wingnuts went after the election. Turns out they've decided to finally start parsing the language of the Constitution, eight years too late. Where was all this boundless energy during the Bush presidency's endless defacing of the same document?
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 3:57pm — philip r stone (not verified)
Since Billy C has been a highly paid unregistered agent of foreign governments(Dubai for one)in violation of 18 USC and files joint tax forms with his wife, she is on a foreign payroll while a US Senator. This is probably a violation of her oath of office and should make her ineligible to be Secretary of State or have any other federal office. Billy claims he will divulge his income but this will not cure the problem. How do you un-rob a bank ?? Since Obama is an Indnesian citizen he is ineligible to be president and can't appoint her anyway.
Not a surprise that Judicial Watch would be going after Hillary Clinton -- it has a long history of Clinton hating dating back to when it repeatedly went after President Bill Clinton in the 1980s.
Judicial Watch is notorious for tying up the court system with endless litigation with no concern for the taxpayers footing the bill.
I believe that under Article IIV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Sen. Clinton cannot become Secretary of State, because she took an oath when she became a Senator.The Article reads: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of Presideny and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who having taken previously taken an oath...".
Yes, you can try to make a nitpicky pointless "well, *technically*..." argument about the Ineligibility Clause and try to create pointless drama over the Clinton appointment. Or... here's a thought... you could be grown ups and recognize the ridiculously, painfully, mind numbingly obvious INTENT of the damn clause was to prevent legislators from raising the pay for a position they were anticipating shortly occupying themselves, and then reaping the windfall... and that rolling back any such pay increase before they take the office addresses that concern 100%. If the pay is where it was all along, then the position being awarded to *that person specifically* is unraised from previous levels, problem solved. Any argument to the contrary is entirely semantic ("Well... well... well... it WAS raised before it WASN'T raised and we feel like being dense about it") and has NOTHING to do with safeguarding the intent of that clause or the integrity of the Constitution.
How about you people go look into situations where actual HARM is being done by people trying to circumvent the document instead of wasting everyone's time on this nonsense?
Actually two:
"Senators and Representatives" was added in the 27th amendment and not by the Founding Fathers, but you knew that with a name like Judicial Watch.
and then there's this, "...during the Time for which he was elected..."
Note the term "he" - it's gender-specific. HRC gets a pass on a technicality and you, Mr. Fitton, look rather foolish.
Well done Judicial Watch and keep up the good work, from where I'm standing Republicans and Democrats alike have had a lot to worry about with you guys looking over there shoulders... The Constitution is still VALID despite a lot of ignorant posts here who would try to dismiss offhand our highest law as being 'outdated'... if you don't like the Constitution people, you can either go elsewhere, or work for 'neocons' like Bush or Clinton, and BTW, Welcome to Clinton Administration v2.0 !!! hah...
It's OK for Hillary to be appointed Secretary of State. Concerning Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 2, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76:
The Constitution has provided some important guards against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body: it declares that "No senator or representative shall during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office."
Hillary has to resign from the Senate in order to guard "against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body."
The article in question is not to forbid a member of Congress from being appointed to a civil office, but to ensure that the system of checks and balances is not compromised by remaining a member of Congress.
Precisely -- thank you for pointing this out. The purpose of this Constitutional provision was to prevent a senator/representative from being appointed to a civil office WHILE HE/SHE IS STILL A SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE. If Hilary resigns, and then gets appointed Sac of State, there's no constitutional problem. This doesn't even get to the issue of "who has standing to pursue such a Constitutional appeal?"
So, to Judicial Watch, I say: "Put your money where your mouth is." File a suit attempting to enjoin Hilary from being appointed Sec of State. See how a court of law treats your ridiculous argument. My prediction: You'll get laughed out of the courtroom by a judge who has better things to do than assist in your assinine attempts to undermine the Obama Administration.
If you're so concerned about constitutional violations, maybe you ought to spend a little more time on the Bush Administration's decision to turn the US into a state that endorses torture. Slightly more serious, and slightly less consitutional. Thanks for your time, jackasses.
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 10:12am — David J. Bowie (not verified)
Considering all the noise about Mr. Obama's "citizenship" this is just the tip of the iceberg, which could lead to the worst constitutional crisis in the history of the United States of America--God help us all!
I now have some confidence that at some point the general population will become smart. Clearly it hasn't happened yet, witness the tactics politicos continue to use to argue their points. They count on ignorance and find plenty of it. Thank god for issues like this and organizations like Judicial Watch, though. The more asinine you become the more likely you are to add another couple of smarties to the population. A few at a time isn't much, so keep harping on this, 'k?
This is from http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.htmlPrimary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
1. Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
2. Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
3. Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
4. Naturalization Certificate
5. Certificate of Citizenship
Looks like something less than a birth certificate will get one a passport.
Does anyone at this organization wonder why no one takes you seriously!? It is no wonder that you are considered "Nut Jobs" and will continue to be considered such as long as you continue to raise silly issues such as this. This Constitution item was "obviously" written to prevent someone from granting themselves a pay raise and benefitting from their previous power. Bush is the one that increased the pay (not Congress) and even it it WAS Congress, it was not a single person in Congress working to vote themselves a raise. At the very least "The Saxbe Fix" should provide you with the solution, as I am sure it would have provided for those who wrote the original item in the Constitution. You should REALLY get a life and let the new Government move ahead with fixing the problems of the country and roll back the real problems created by 8 years of an Administration who was really breaking laws and trampling on the Constitution.
I am glad Obama was elected and I voted for him. I voted for him to restore "rule of law" after eight years of what I believe, at its worse (renditions, illegal surveilance, torture, kangaroo courts)to have been the most lawless presidency ever. The Bush administration views the Constitution as an impediment, to be gotten around, sidesteped, at times openly disdained, and not what it is: the greatest liberty document ever created. While I agree that Clinton would be a great choice, practically and politically, if she actually is sworn it will violate the Constitution, which is hardly the reason I voted for the man. I voted for him to stop this sort of thing. Though embarassing to him politically, I hope he will acknowledge the error and withdraw the offer of Secretary of State, and I hope that Clinton will graciously accept that.
Are you guys serious? Article 1 oulines the duties of the CONGRESS. This increased emolument was the order of the EXECUTIVE. Article II outlines the president's power to appoint cabinet positions, though I find no reference to him setting the wage. Still sounds like the job of Congress to me. Maybe then you might have an argument. you guys should find something better to complain about. Billary-4-Life!!
"And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
So, the truth comes out. This whole constitutional-eligibility mess is really just a smokescreen designed to hide this organization's real message: Judicial Watch does not like Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch offers no remedy that would allow a very popular candidate be appointed to this position, despite evidence that such a remedy has been found in the past (See Saxbe Fix). All Judicial Watch wants to do is prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming Sec'y of State.
Notice that Judicial Watch is not applying this doctrine to any of Obama's other nominations, such as Rahm Emanuel, who has been a member of the House of Representatives since 2002. This is clearly a hit-piece going after Hillary Clinton.
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 9:16pm — Tom Flynn (not verified)
Your piece reminds me of the first year undergraduate degree essays that I'm currently marking. Has anyone in this ridiculous organisation even studied political science/essay writing before?!
Former President Nixon can circumvent the law - no problem (you don't criticise this at all)? But Obama can't do it for Clinton? Get real!
And of course, this is ignoring the fact that you're ignoring the principles of the constitution in favour of tiny, and lets face it, rather pointless specificities? What PRINCIPLE of democracy does the appointment violate?!
Wouldn't ANY federal employee (or retired federal employee) have standing to sue on this matter? ALL federal employees take the following oath of office:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." [5 U.S.C. §3331]
The oath doesn't expire upon retirement and obligates the employee to support and defend the Constitution. Thus any active or retired federal employee would have standing pursuant to his/her oath to challenge Mrs Clinton's appointment.
As for the "his" argument - this is pure fluff. In the English language, the masculine is historically used to cover both male and female (sexist or not).
...and the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch of our government.
If there was any credibility in "Judicial Watch" I think this story pretty much sends it down the toilet. Sitting squarely in the middle of the road, I used to check in now & again for some of the more sentient points this site had, from time to time--but I think I'm done.
Somebody register "Right-Wing-Nutjob-Watch.com" these boys have gone off the reservation.
If we had not let the Constitution becomes Bush’s toilet paper, America would still be great, the Federal Reserve would have never been, & we would have all kept the fruits of our labor instead of them been stolen away by the evil parasitic vultures that print our money, & continue to loot US all from our wealth, our Freedom, & our inalienable rights that come along w/ that God given Freedom.
It is time we start protecting the Constitution of The United States of America from all enemies foreign & domestic.
It has been a long time since the US has been great. Mr. Clinton was far from great, he was a disgrace. People blame Bush for outsourcing, but my job began to be outsourced during Clinton's reign. Bush wasn't any better. Obama won't be any better, he is following in Clinton's steps. We can't say anything for fear of being racist. We need to follow our constitution otherwise we have nothing. We have had 16 years of bad leadership, don't just say 8. I have seen it going down for a long time. We started to learn to live on credit during the Clinton era and where did it get us? We need to accept our mistakes, step back, and look at our constitution. We elected another mistake (and McCain would have been a mistake too) -- we are on a teeter totter, every six years we go from one side to another -- perhaps we should look and see where we go wrong. Eight years from now after another Clinton we will pick another Bush if our country lasts that long.
Barak Hussain Obama can't elect anyone to the cabinet or make any legal motion as his birth of National origin is in question. He has yet to produce a COLB record in any court of law. So in effect we need to bring a new president-elect in or cast a re-vote for a new president. So Hillary is a moot point at this time.
The "Saxbe fix" is not unreasonable, really. If the phrase "shall have been encreased during such time" is read as "shall have undergone a net increase during such time", then there is no problem. Think about the stock market - even on days of the worst drops, there are upward fluctuations, but the result people care about is the closing price. Anyway, the "Saxbe fix" is already precedent, so no new "crisis" is engendered (no pun on "he" intended) by following it.
This is interesting, i hadn't heard of the Saxbe Fix before. Thanks.
My question is, why do you let people comment here? It's not really worth it. I'd much rather just read your article and check it out myself without all the garbage people add to your page. They can't even stick to the topic.
Clinton is the least of Obama's worries when he hasn't even proved that he is eligible to be the president. When will Berg, et al, get a final ruling on Obama producing his birth certificate? Oh, I know, it will get swept under the rug like everything else that gets thrown at the Teflon Comrade.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 9:26am — Clayton Jones (not verified)
QUOTE BY GEORGE W. BUSH: "THE CONSTITUTION IS NOTHING BUT A GOD DAMNED PIECE OF PAPER!"
Democrats and Republicans both ignore the CONSTITUTION when a given political matter advances their agenda. Anyone from any party who ignores the integrity of the Constitution is a fool and a traitor to LIBERTY. All of you
Democrats and Republicans have buried the dagger of Tyranny into the heart of Liberty.
I used to not believe in HELL and perhaps there isn't such a god forsaken place, but now I wish there is an eternal burning torment. Obviously justice is not served in this mortal life. I wouldn't piss on you hypocrites if you were on fire!
The Republicans prayed for a messiah. They got George W. Bush. We know the ending of that story. The Democrats prayed for a messiah. They got Barack H. Obama same ending only worse. Be careful what you pray for you might get it.
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE .....you simpletons all of you have been screwed and you just won't admit it. You get the government you deserve! Real Justice Watch is Coming. Good day.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 9:36am — Clayton Jones (not verified)
Anonymous Coward who asked why are people allowed to comment here? Anonymous are you brain dead or just acting in your usual cowardly manner and who are you? Forums like Justice Watch provides a place where Americans, foreigners and cowards can express their beliefs and opinions just like you. I notice its okay for you to comment, but not the rest of we the peasants. Grow up and get a life.
They are politicians. They don't give a crap about rules, regulations and laws. They are above all that stuff. Like leona Helmsly said - that is for the little people. You know - us, the suckers that pay all the country's bills. Next up - a political bail out of a bunch of slobs in Detroit that make $70 per hour.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 9:54am — Tom Jefferson (not verified)
I am amazed at the stupidity and cognitive rigidity of so many on the right who insist that Obama has not submitted his Birth Certificate. In Hawaii, ALL CITIZENS are provided with what is called a Certificate of Live Birth, a "short-form" document. The long-form or vault certificate that everyone wants Obama to provide is not available to ANYONE in Hawaii -- period.
The State regards the short form as legal for all purposes including running for office. It is the legal standard in Hawaii. Obama received his copy and submitted it. A couple of internet "experts" have tried to establish that it is a forgery. In fact, some clown named Ron Polarik, PhD, wrote a long treatise on the so-called forgery. Unfortunately, the name Polarik is an alias and he very likely does not have a PhD. A real PhD, Dr. Neal Krawetz, examined Polarik's analysis and called it "BAD SCIENCE".
The state of Hawaii has verified and authenticated his birth certificate. That's it folks. Obama will be president and the Bergs and Donofrios of the world can pound sand.
A certfiicate of live brith is NOT the same as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I have both. When I applied for my passport, my license, my pilots license, or enrolled in the military, the "certificate of live birth" was UNACCEPTABLE, but the BIRTH CERTIFICATE was. Now, you go to that link and see for yourself that you can order a hawaii birth certificate from the Hawaii vital records office.
And you didn't even mention that the governor LIED when he said it contained his social security number and used that LIE as justification for not releasing it. A BLATANT LIE!!! It wasn't until the late 70's that ss numbers were issued at birth. I got mine when I was 14 and entered the work force for the first time.
I have concluded that the people who still cling to the myth that Obama's original birth certificate, or even the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet are so desperate to prove me wrong that they would rather listen to fools than to facts.
Predictably, they are the ones spreading the vicious rumor that I'm a "fraud," that I "don't exist," and that my final report is "bunk."
The truth is that the person who got this this rumor started never even read my final report, is totally clueless about my research, and hopelessly confused about the entire birth certificate controversy.
The rumormonger, aka Neal Krawetz, has managed to use his lofty-sounding but irrelevant credentials, to fool people into thinking that his lies, slurs, baseless conclusions, and fabricated images actually refute my research when, in fact, they repudiate his credibility.
Krawetz is living proof that paper credentials do not convey credibility or competence. If Krawetz tells you that he's read my final report, then he's lying through his teeth as he did throughout his "Bad Science" screed.
All one has to do is to read my final report and then read his "Bad Science" screed, to know that he didn't. My research speaks for itself, and I have legitimate reasons (regarding my job) for not revealing my credentials.
So, if someone does not read my final report, then he does not have the right to knock it as Krawetz has done. My final report, the one that Krawetz never read, can be seen here: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com. It is 160 printed pages and contains 140 COLB-related images, or about 138 more than Krawetz used. Whether Krawetz likes it or not, it puts to rest the ridiculous notion that a genuine copy of Obama's paper Certification of Live Birth was ever posted online.
My point-by-point debunking of Krawetz's bogus review of my report and his slanderous attacks can be seen on my alternate blog, http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com. You don't need to have any credentials to read and understand the report.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 10:03am — eric swan (not verified)
I'm not that familiar with American law but the impression from your media was that Obama got the nod because Americans were not sure that a continuation of the Bush/Clinton regime was a good thing. I suppose blood is thicker than water.
It's clear from the handwringing, whinging posts on this site that the majority of liberal/Democrat/"red diaper baby" visitors do not think there are rules--or, if there are rules, they are never absolute, but of a "sliding-scale" variety (kind of like "situation ethics" where it's ok to kill sometimes, but not every time--it "depends"). Interesting that so many of us right-wing nutjobs have spent years marching and protesting the war, the use of DU, the use of torture, and the increasing police state tactics used against dissenters at home, but now you lot accuse us of never wanting to uphold the constitution except against a bunch of criminal fraudsters waiting in the wings to usurp the governance of this country come January 2009. You liberal/Democrat/"red diaper baby" people do not know whereof you speak. The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land, and no matter who breaks it, they must be made to pay. And yes, I DO support impeachment for the current Commander in Chief for this very reason. He has broken the Constitution. Just like Lady Clinton and His "Hindass" Barry Soetoro/Barry Dunham/Barry Obama/Barack Dunham/Barack Obama/Barack Hussein Obama....They deceived the people. They must be brought to justice.
Gee,Spent a few hours investigating the editor of worldreports.org and I was looking for DIRT! But going back 30 years all I found was that this editor had NONE. His latest report is very damaging to the US and his own country of origin the UK. Hillary corruption? Well discern for yourself. Good day and Good luck.
All of you should be more worried about our Bill of Rights being taken away from us by our corrupt Republican president George Bush who commits perjury on a daily basis on almost every policy and nothing is done about this. We are suppose to a government for the people by the people. However the people are more concerned with how Britney Spears looked in her new video, or How Brangelina are getting along. Meanwhile the richest 1% of our citizens are stealing our tax dollars because they ran their businesses in the ground. Personally i think Hillary Clinton is more qualified to be SOS than anyone in Bush's cabinet. She is more qualified than Obama to be President and should have been elected. So take a look at who passed this BS piece of legislation and understand that he has committed violations of his oath of office, lies to the american people, supports our own Terrorism of Innocent people abroad
and lastly is robbing our country of our hard earned Tax dollars to give to
his businees buddies.
Just the fact, if true, that Hillary helped herself to the White House furnishings on her way out and was told she had to put them back should say something. Anyone of us caught doing so would have been in jail, Hillary goes on to Senator. What is wrong with this country? Is Mr. Obama aware of all of this? I would certainly hope so.
Funny (not at all really) how it takes a constitutional issue to try to get anything done, yet simple theft of the Nations White House by the outgoing is overlooked and considered menial. If we throw politicians in jail for their crimes when we should, we wouldn't have to deal with "Constitutional Crises" and calamity.
The point being is Hillary should have been tried in court for what she did, and if found guilty should have a criminal record. Not be in the Senate if she took what did not belong to her.
Any average American walking out of the White House with property belonging to the White House and the people would have been immediately arrested. Hillary goes on to be Senator.
This is why nothing in Washington is a crime. And the Constitution is meaning less by the day.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 12:07pm — bob the grape (not verified)
You really should take a good look at yourself. you should be independent in your viewpoints, but you have let so many other instances of abuse of the constitution go amiss. There is really something wrong and you should change the name of your site to something more honest.
Democrats hate politicians,Republicans hate politicians, Politicians hate them too. Can we just get rid of all the politicians, have a group hug and all go on our way? I don't think the politicians would be missed.
Thank you, Judicial Watch, for this article and for being a voice to uphold the law by which our nation is supposed to be governed- the Constitution. A law which is being all-too ignored by the elected politicians and the citizens as well.
There is a crisis going on. Just look at the reader comments on this topic. Yikes! Our countrymen, being educated (dumbed down, really) in state-run schools, have no knowledge of or concern for the Constitution- and they would rather see it destroyed and ignored, as they are under the impression that we live in a "democracy" (yes, we are at the very staged our Founders warned of).
Since they care not for the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution, nor the rights and limitation of government that it conveys, they instead see it as a limitation of their will, since they would happily thrust socialism upon us, through their feloneous elected leaders, and the Constitution (or what remains of it) is the only thing that hinders them.
RIP America. When our citizens, elected representatives and even the Supreme Court have no love for or understanding of the Constitution, we as a nation are finished and what freedoms we enjoyed are becoming extinct.
Didn't Mr. OBAMA have a focus in Constitutional Law? How can these smart people in Washington be so incompetent? It's either really bold or really stupid. Both options are scary.
Subscribe via RSS
Comments
Wow, you guys clearly aren't
Wow, you guys clearly aren't worried about your credibility at all, are you?
I was wondering where all
I was wondering where all the (far right-)wingnuts went after the election. Turns out they've decided to finally start parsing the language of the Constitution, eight years too late. Where was all this boundless energy during the Bush presidency's endless defacing of the same document?
Clinton ineligible for SOS
Since Billy C has been a highly paid unregistered agent of foreign governments(Dubai for one)in violation of 18 USC and files joint tax forms with his wife, she is on a foreign payroll while a US Senator. This is probably a violation of her oath of office and should make her ineligible to be Secretary of State or have any other federal office. Billy claims he will divulge his income but this will not cure the problem. How do you un-rob a bank ?? Since Obama is an Indnesian citizen he is ineligible to be president and can't appoint her anyway.
Clinton-hating Judicial Watch
Not a surprise that Judicial Watch would be going after Hillary Clinton -- it has a long history of Clinton hating dating back to when it repeatedly went after President Bill Clinton in the 1980s.
Judicial Watch is notorious for tying up the court system with endless litigation with no concern for the taxpayers footing the bill.
I thought Billy Clinton was
I thought Billy Clinton was the President between 1992 - 2000. But I"m not American, so what do I know...
Sen. Clinton as Sec. of State-Art. IIV,Section 3
Sirs/Madams:
I believe that under Article IIV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Sen. Clinton cannot become Secretary of State, because she took an oath when she became a Senator.The Article reads: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of Presideny and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who having taken previously taken an oath...".
Go find something relevent to harp on.
Yes, you can try to make a nitpicky pointless "well, *technically*..." argument about the Ineligibility Clause and try to create pointless drama over the Clinton appointment. Or... here's a thought... you could be grown ups and recognize the ridiculously, painfully, mind numbingly obvious INTENT of the damn clause was to prevent legislators from raising the pay for a position they were anticipating shortly occupying themselves, and then reaping the windfall... and that rolling back any such pay increase before they take the office addresses that concern 100%. If the pay is where it was all along, then the position being awarded to *that person specifically* is unraised from previous levels, problem solved. Any argument to the contrary is entirely semantic ("Well... well... well... it WAS raised before it WASN'T raised and we feel like being dense about it") and has NOTHING to do with safeguarding the intent of that clause or the integrity of the Constitution.
How about you people go look into situations where actual HARM is being done by people trying to circumvent the document instead of wasting everyone's time on this nonsense?
Wow
Have any of you birth certificate nutjobs ever gotten a passport before? The State Department is a little more stringent than the NJ DMV...
I can't believe people are
I can't believe people are sooooo stupid... Do you really think all these lawyers missed this if your story is for real?
Well, there's one detail you are missing...
Actually two:
"Senators and Representatives" was added in the 27th amendment and not by the Founding Fathers, but you knew that with a name like Judicial Watch.
and then there's this, "...during the Time for which he was elected..."
Note the term "he" - it's gender-specific. HRC gets a pass on a technicality and you, Mr. Fitton, look rather foolish.
Well done
Well done Judicial Watch and keep up the good work, from where I'm standing Republicans and Democrats alike have had a lot to worry about with you guys looking over there shoulders... The Constitution is still VALID despite a lot of ignorant posts here who would try to dismiss offhand our highest law as being 'outdated'... if you don't like the Constitution people, you can either go elsewhere, or work for 'neocons' like Bush or Clinton, and BTW, Welcome to Clinton Administration v2.0 !!! hah...
I think your missing a key
I think your missing a key word in the law "he".
That's funny... With all the
That's funny...
With all the woman's rights reforms Some where there's probably a law stating "he : refers to "he" or "she"..
Hillary OK for Secretary of State
It's OK for Hillary to be appointed Secretary of State. Concerning Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 2, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76:
The Constitution has provided some important guards against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body: it declares that "No senator or representative shall during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office."
Hillary has to resign from the Senate in order to guard "against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body."
The article in question is not to forbid a member of Congress from being appointed to a civil office, but to ensure that the system of checks and balances is not compromised by remaining a member of Congress.
Precisely -- thank you for
Precisely -- thank you for pointing this out. The purpose of this Constitutional provision was to prevent a senator/representative from being appointed to a civil office WHILE HE/SHE IS STILL A SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE. If Hilary resigns, and then gets appointed Sac of State, there's no constitutional problem. This doesn't even get to the issue of "who has standing to pursue such a Constitutional appeal?"
So, to Judicial Watch, I say: "Put your money where your mouth is." File a suit attempting to enjoin Hilary from being appointed Sec of State. See how a court of law treats your ridiculous argument. My prediction: You'll get laughed out of the courtroom by a judge who has better things to do than assist in your assinine attempts to undermine the Obama Administration.
If you're so concerned about constitutional violations, maybe you ought to spend a little more time on the Bush Administration's decision to turn the US into a state that endorses torture. Slightly more serious, and slightly less consitutional. Thanks for your time, jackasses.
Hillary ineligible to be Secretary of State
Considering all the noise about Mr. Obama's "citizenship" this is just the tip of the iceberg, which could lead to the worst constitutional crisis in the history of the United States of America--God help us all!
Thanks, Judicial Watch
I now have some confidence that at some point the general population will become smart. Clearly it hasn't happened yet, witness the tactics politicos continue to use to argue their points. They count on ignorance and find plenty of it. Thank god for issues like this and organizations like Judicial Watch, though. The more asinine you become the more likely you are to add another couple of smarties to the population. A few at a time isn't much, so keep harping on this, 'k?
You are a fool. But then,
You are a fool. But then, the rest of the world expects this from Americans who support right wing candidates.
Excellent!
Spectacular work, JW. You give a clear-headed explication of this so, so significant issue. Time to raise your emoluments.
This is from
This is from http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.htmlPrimary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
1. Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
2. Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
3. Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
4. Naturalization Certificate
5. Certificate of Citizenship
Looks like something less than a birth certificate will get one a passport.
?
Does anyone at this organization wonder why no one takes you seriously!? It is no wonder that you are considered "Nut Jobs" and will continue to be considered such as long as you continue to raise silly issues such as this. This Constitution item was "obviously" written to prevent someone from granting themselves a pay raise and benefitting from their previous power. Bush is the one that increased the pay (not Congress) and even it it WAS Congress, it was not a single person in Congress working to vote themselves a raise. At the very least "The Saxbe Fix" should provide you with the solution, as I am sure it would have provided for those who wrote the original item in the Constitution. You should REALLY get a life and let the new Government move ahead with fixing the problems of the country and roll back the real problems created by 8 years of an Administration who was really breaking laws and trampling on the Constitution.
DISAPpOINTING
I am glad Obama was elected and I voted for him. I voted for him to restore "rule of law" after eight years of what I believe, at its worse (renditions, illegal surveilance, torture, kangaroo courts)to have been the most lawless presidency ever. The Bush administration views the Constitution as an impediment, to be gotten around, sidesteped, at times openly disdained, and not what it is: the greatest liberty document ever created. While I agree that Clinton would be a great choice, practically and politically, if she actually is sworn it will violate the Constitution, which is hardly the reason I voted for the man. I voted for him to stop this sort of thing. Though embarassing to him politically, I hope he will acknowledge the error and withdraw the offer of Secretary of State, and I hope that Clinton will graciously accept that.
what?
Are you guys serious? Article 1 oulines the duties of the CONGRESS. This increased emolument was the order of the EXECUTIVE. Article II outlines the president's power to appoint cabinet positions, though I find no reference to him setting the wage. Still sounds like the job of Congress to me. Maybe then you might have an argument. you guys should find something better to complain about. Billary-4-Life!!
The truth comes out
"And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
So, the truth comes out. This whole constitutional-eligibility mess is really just a smokescreen designed to hide this organization's real message: Judicial Watch does not like Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch offers no remedy that would allow a very popular candidate be appointed to this position, despite evidence that such a remedy has been found in the past (See Saxbe Fix). All Judicial Watch wants to do is prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming Sec'y of State.
Notice that Judicial Watch is not applying this doctrine to any of Obama's other nominations, such as Rahm Emanuel, who has been a member of the House of Representatives since 2002. This is clearly a hit-piece going after Hillary Clinton.
Your piece reminds me of the
Your piece reminds me of the first year undergraduate degree essays that I'm currently marking. Has anyone in this ridiculous organisation even studied political science/essay writing before?!
Former President Nixon can circumvent the law - no problem (you don't criticise this at all)? But Obama can't do it for Clinton? Get real!
And of course, this is ignoring the fact that you're ignoring the principles of the constitution in favour of tiny, and lets face it, rather pointless specificities? What PRINCIPLE of democracy does the appointment violate?!
Standing
Wouldn't ANY federal employee (or retired federal employee) have standing to sue on this matter? ALL federal employees take the following oath of office:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." [5 U.S.C. §3331]
The oath doesn't expire upon retirement and obligates the employee to support and defend the Constitution. Thus any active or retired federal employee would have standing pursuant to his/her oath to challenge Mrs Clinton's appointment.
As for the "his" argument - this is pure fluff. In the English language, the masculine is historically used to cover both male and female (sexist or not).
Fabulous
...and the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch of our government.
If there was any credibility in "Judicial Watch" I think this story pretty much sends it down the toilet. Sitting squarely in the middle of the road, I used to check in now & again for some of the more sentient points this site had, from time to time--but I think I'm done.
Somebody register "Right-Wing-Nutjob-Watch.com" these boys have gone off the reservation.
Uphold the Constitution of The United States of America
If we had not let the Constitution becomes Bush’s toilet paper, America would still be great, the Federal Reserve would have never been, & we would have all kept the fruits of our labor instead of them been stolen away by the evil parasitic vultures that print our money, & continue to loot US all from our wealth, our Freedom, & our inalienable rights that come along w/ that God given Freedom.
It is time we start protecting the Constitution of The United States of America from all enemies foreign & domestic.
It has been a long time
It has been a long time since the US has been great. Mr. Clinton was far from great, he was a disgrace. People blame Bush for outsourcing, but my job began to be outsourced during Clinton's reign. Bush wasn't any better. Obama won't be any better, he is following in Clinton's steps. We can't say anything for fear of being racist. We need to follow our constitution otherwise we have nothing. We have had 16 years of bad leadership, don't just say 8. I have seen it going down for a long time. We started to learn to live on credit during the Clinton era and where did it get us? We need to accept our mistakes, step back, and look at our constitution. We elected another mistake (and McCain would have been a mistake too) -- we are on a teeter totter, every six years we go from one side to another -- perhaps we should look and see where we go wrong. Eight years from now after another Clinton we will pick another Bush if our country lasts that long.
Obama can't make legal motions yet
Barak Hussain Obama can't elect anyone to the cabinet or make any legal motion as his birth of National origin is in question. He has yet to produce a COLB record in any court of law. So in effect we need to bring a new president-elect in or cast a re-vote for a new president. So Hillary is a moot point at this time.
"Increase" - instantaneous or net?
The "Saxbe fix" is not unreasonable, really. If the phrase "shall have been encreased during such time" is read as "shall have undergone a net increase during such time", then there is no problem. Think about the stock market - even on days of the worst drops, there are upward fluctuations, but the result people care about is the closing price. Anyway, the "Saxbe fix" is already precedent, so no new "crisis" is engendered (no pun on "he" intended) by following it.
This is interesting, i
This is interesting, i hadn't heard of the Saxbe Fix before. Thanks.
My question is, why do you let people comment here? It's not really worth it. I'd much rather just read your article and check it out myself without all the garbage people add to your page. They can't even stick to the topic.
Constitutional Law
Clinton is the least of Obama's worries when he hasn't even proved that he is eligible to be the president. When will Berg, et al, get a final ruling on Obama producing his birth certificate? Oh, I know, it will get swept under the rug like everything else that gets thrown at the Teflon Comrade.
Hurray For Our Side -UGH!
QUOTE BY GEORGE W. BUSH: "THE CONSTITUTION IS NOTHING BUT A GOD DAMNED PIECE OF PAPER!"
Democrats and Republicans both ignore the CONSTITUTION when a given political matter advances their agenda. Anyone from any party who ignores the integrity of the Constitution is a fool and a traitor to LIBERTY. All of you
Democrats and Republicans have buried the dagger of Tyranny into the heart of Liberty.
I used to not believe in HELL and perhaps there isn't such a god forsaken place, but now I wish there is an eternal burning torment. Obviously justice is not served in this mortal life. I wouldn't piss on you hypocrites if you were on fire!
The Republicans prayed for a messiah. They got George W. Bush. We know the ending of that story. The Democrats prayed for a messiah. They got Barack H. Obama same ending only worse. Be careful what you pray for you might get it.
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE .....you simpletons all of you have been screwed and you just won't admit it. You get the government you deserve! Real Justice Watch is Coming. Good day.
Because We Are Free To Speak
Anonymous Coward who asked why are people allowed to comment here? Anonymous are you brain dead or just acting in your usual cowardly manner and who are you? Forums like Justice Watch provides a place where Americans, foreigners and cowards can express their beliefs and opinions just like you. I notice its okay for you to comment, but not the rest of we the peasants. Grow up and get a life.
Obeying laws is for the little people
They are politicians. They don't give a crap about rules, regulations and laws. They are above all that stuff. Like leona Helmsly said - that is for the little people. You know - us, the suckers that pay all the country's bills. Next up - a political bail out of a bunch of slobs in Detroit that make $70 per hour.
Obama's Birth Certificate
I am amazed at the stupidity and cognitive rigidity of so many on the right who insist that Obama has not submitted his Birth Certificate. In Hawaii, ALL CITIZENS are provided with what is called a Certificate of Live Birth, a "short-form" document. The long-form or vault certificate that everyone wants Obama to provide is not available to ANYONE in Hawaii -- period.
The State regards the short form as legal for all purposes including running for office. It is the legal standard in Hawaii. Obama received his copy and submitted it. A couple of internet "experts" have tried to establish that it is a forgery. In fact, some clown named Ron Polarik, PhD, wrote a long treatise on the so-called forgery. Unfortunately, the name Polarik is an alias and he very likely does not have a PhD. A real PhD, Dr. Neal Krawetz, examined Polarik's analysis and called it "BAD SCIENCE".
The state of Hawaii has verified and authenticated his birth certificate. That's it folks. Obama will be president and the Bergs and Donofrios of the world can pound sand.
http://hawaiibirthcertificate
http://hawaiibirthcertificate.com/
WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
A certfiicate of live brith is NOT the same as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I have both. When I applied for my passport, my license, my pilots license, or enrolled in the military, the "certificate of live birth" was UNACCEPTABLE, but the BIRTH CERTIFICATE was. Now, you go to that link and see for yourself that you can order a hawaii birth certificate from the Hawaii vital records office.
And you didn't even mention that the governor LIED when he said it contained his social security number and used that LIE as justification for not releasing it. A BLATANT LIE!!! It wasn't until the late 70's that ss numbers were issued at birth. I got mine when I was 14 and entered the work force for the first time.
Krawetz never read my final report and is a charlatan
I have concluded that the people who still cling to the myth that Obama's original birth certificate, or even the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet are so desperate to prove me wrong that they would rather listen to fools than to facts.
Predictably, they are the ones spreading the vicious rumor that I'm a "fraud," that I "don't exist," and that my final report is "bunk."
The truth is that the person who got this this rumor started never even read my final report, is totally clueless about my research, and hopelessly confused about the entire birth certificate controversy.
The rumormonger, aka Neal Krawetz, has managed to use his lofty-sounding but irrelevant credentials, to fool people into thinking that his lies, slurs, baseless conclusions, and fabricated images actually refute my research when, in fact, they repudiate his credibility.
Krawetz is living proof that paper credentials do not convey credibility or competence. If Krawetz tells you that he's read my final report, then he's lying through his teeth as he did throughout his "Bad Science" screed.
All one has to do is to read my final report and then read his "Bad Science" screed, to know that he didn't. My research speaks for itself, and I have legitimate reasons (regarding my job) for not revealing my credentials.
So, if someone does not read my final report, then he does not have the right to knock it as Krawetz has done. My final report, the one that Krawetz never read, can be seen here: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com. It is 160 printed pages and contains 140 COLB-related images, or about 138 more than Krawetz used. Whether Krawetz likes it or not, it puts to rest the ridiculous notion that a genuine copy of Obama's paper Certification of Live Birth was ever posted online.
My point-by-point debunking of Krawetz's bogus review of my report and his slanderous attacks can be seen on my alternate blog, http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com. You don't need to have any credentials to read and understand the report.
how far down the list is Hillary for President?
I'm not that familiar with American law but the impression from your media was that Obama got the nod because Americans were not sure that a continuation of the Bush/Clinton regime was a good thing. I suppose blood is thicker than water.
It's clear from the
It's clear from the handwringing, whinging posts on this site that the majority of liberal/Democrat/"red diaper baby" visitors do not think there are rules--or, if there are rules, they are never absolute, but of a "sliding-scale" variety (kind of like "situation ethics" where it's ok to kill sometimes, but not every time--it "depends"). Interesting that so many of us right-wing nutjobs have spent years marching and protesting the war, the use of DU, the use of torture, and the increasing police state tactics used against dissenters at home, but now you lot accuse us of never wanting to uphold the constitution except against a bunch of criminal fraudsters waiting in the wings to usurp the governance of this country come January 2009. You liberal/Democrat/"red diaper baby" people do not know whereof you speak. The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land, and no matter who breaks it, they must be made to pay. And yes, I DO support impeachment for the current Commander in Chief for this very reason. He has broken the Constitution. Just like Lady Clinton and His "Hindass" Barry Soetoro/Barry Dunham/Barry Obama/Barack Dunham/Barack Obama/Barack Hussein Obama....They deceived the people. They must be brought to justice.
Other Problems
www.tinyurl.com/yjyrtn
Hillary corruption.......
Gee,Spent a few hours investigating the editor of worldreports.org and I was looking for DIRT! But going back 30 years all I found was that this editor had NONE. His latest report is very damaging to the US and his own country of origin the UK. Hillary corruption? Well discern for yourself. Good day and Good luck.
Constitution
All of you should be more worried about our Bill of Rights being taken away from us by our corrupt Republican president George Bush who commits perjury on a daily basis on almost every policy and nothing is done about this. We are suppose to a government for the people by the people. However the people are more concerned with how Britney Spears looked in her new video, or How Brangelina are getting along. Meanwhile the richest 1% of our citizens are stealing our tax dollars because they ran their businesses in the ground. Personally i think Hillary Clinton is more qualified to be SOS than anyone in Bush's cabinet. She is more qualified than Obama to be President and should have been elected. So take a look at who passed this BS piece of legislation and understand that he has committed violations of his oath of office, lies to the american people, supports our own Terrorism of Innocent people abroad
and lastly is robbing our country of our hard earned Tax dollars to give to
his businees buddies.
What about the White House furnishings?
Just the fact, if true, that Hillary helped herself to the White House furnishings on her way out and was told she had to put them back should say something. Anyone of us caught doing so would have been in jail, Hillary goes on to Senator. What is wrong with this country? Is Mr. Obama aware of all of this? I would certainly hope so.
Funny (not at all really) how it takes a constitutional issue to try to get anything done, yet simple theft of the Nations White House by the outgoing is overlooked and considered menial. If we throw politicians in jail for their crimes when we should, we wouldn't have to deal with "Constitutional Crises" and calamity.
The point being is Hillary should have been tried in court for what she did, and if found guilty should have a criminal record. Not be in the Senate if she took what did not belong to her.
Any average American walking out of the White House with property belonging to the White House and the people would have been immediately arrested. Hillary goes on to be Senator.
This is why nothing in Washington is a crime. And the Constitution is meaning less by the day.
Hillary
Constitution, what Constitution??
hillary - Secretary of State inelgibility!
You really should take a good look at yourself. you should be independent in your viewpoints, but you have let so many other instances of abuse of the constitution go amiss. There is really something wrong and you should change the name of your site to something more honest.
Democrats hate
Democrats hate politicians,Republicans hate politicians, Politicians hate them too. Can we just get rid of all the politicians, have a group hug and all go on our way? I don't think the politicians would be missed.
Thank You, Judicial Watch
Thank you, Judicial Watch, for this article and for being a voice to uphold the law by which our nation is supposed to be governed- the Constitution. A law which is being all-too ignored by the elected politicians and the citizens as well.
There is a crisis going on. Just look at the reader comments on this topic. Yikes! Our countrymen, being educated (dumbed down, really) in state-run schools, have no knowledge of or concern for the Constitution- and they would rather see it destroyed and ignored, as they are under the impression that we live in a "democracy" (yes, we are at the very staged our Founders warned of).
Since they care not for the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution, nor the rights and limitation of government that it conveys, they instead see it as a limitation of their will, since they would happily thrust socialism upon us, through their feloneous elected leaders, and the Constitution (or what remains of it) is the only thing that hinders them.
RIP America. When our citizens, elected representatives and even the Supreme Court have no love for or understanding of the Constitution, we as a nation are finished and what freedoms we enjoyed are becoming extinct.
Scary
Didn't Mr. OBAMA have a focus in Constitutional Law? How can these smart people in Washington be so incompetent? It's either really bold or really stupid. Both options are scary.