Good. The more the corruption, the deeper the corruption, the greater the chances that eventually, some day, when a tipping point is reached, a mob will descend on D.C. and will leave no building standing and no politico alive. Then I will laugh. Muhahahahah! Funny.
who think this isn't a big deal, I encourage you to reconsider this stance. I notice a lot of people say that the prohibiting clause is outdated, but remember that it is in place to stop corruption. Corruption is never outdated.
Pretty sad coming from a guy that supposedly taught constitutional law. And what's with this Democracy thing people keep talking about? Last time I knew, this country was a Constitutional Republic.
Fri, 12/05/2008 - 2:01pm — Clinton Researcher (not verified)
Wake up, people. It's not a "wingnut" thing, it's an "American citizens getting sick and tired of corruption" thing.
Corruption runs rampant in the White House. Period. If you don't realize this, then you're living on another planet. Please stay home on future election days.
I thought Obama was all for restoring the constitution. This to me is backwards.
And for everyone saying go after Bush, I agree.
How can you say this is trivial? It is clear cut. She can not serve. That is good news.
The constitution should and MUST be restored and you can not bend the rules when it does not agree with you. You MUST say it is what it is and move on. Find another person for the job and move on constitutionally.
The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. If we don't have a Constitution then what can't the government do. The Constitution was created to protect and guarantee our Rights, without the Constitution our rights well no longer be protected.
The Constitution consistently refers to the President as "he," while it refers to other offices in generic terms. Apparently, the Founding Fathers intended the President to be a man.
Hillary probably wasn't eligible to run for Prez, either.
Tue, 12/02/2008 - 23:09 — Anonymous (not verified)
This is such a dumb issue.
This is such a dumb issue. I mean really??? We shouldn't let someone serve because the salary increased... C'mon people, stop trying to make news, this is way overblown. If they lower the salary, what is the problem???
So tell us, what part of the Constitution, would you consider, is worth defending?
But oh what a wad the "liberals" get into over Roe v Wade, which came to be because of a vague "penumbra" of the Constitution guaranteeing right to privacy which, to them, trumps the right to life. Better not be too hard on the Constitution or your activist judges will be out of jobs.
Hypocrisy is in both camps, liberal and "conservative" - especially "neo-cons" like Bush and Cheny. Please don't tar Constitutionalists with the "necon" brush;
Constitutionalists hate Bush's flagrant disregard for the law of the land but two wrongs have never made a right. If you really want rule of law instead of rule by whimsical tyrants, then demand that the assaults on the Constitution halt NOW. It has to start somewhere - Obama has a simple solution; if he's genuinely a natural born citizen, all he has to do is produce the document that proves it.
Is it better to live under a "liberal" tyranny than a "conservative" tyranny? What's going to stop tyranny if not the Constitution?
I see a lot of emotional reactions here (both ways). At this point in time, I don't have the information necessary to express an opinion directly on this issue, and I doubt any other posters truly do either.
Forget emotion. This is a matter of law. It was violated or it was not. Those stating that the law is too contemporary or it's just a "minor" violation or that the real issue is Obama's citizenship (a DIFFERENT issue) are ignorant of LAW - what it is for, how it works, and who must comply with it and, most importantly, why.
"In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
~ Justice Louis Brandeis
Based on the above statement, we have been screwed for a VERY LONG TIME, but I fail to see how this diminishes the weight of what Justice Brandeis was trying to communicate or the value we should place on it as a society. IF there is a violation of law, then that violation will have a remedy applied to it. IF there is no violation, then carry on. The amount of criminality that has come before or exists now does (should) not change this.
you need a revolution an insurrection the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1776.
because you are now in the hands of very corrupt and very dangerous people.
It will only worsen if you do not act .
umm..she is worth tens of millions, so I'm sure she isn't making the move to cash in on that extra few thousand bucks..you could make the salary zero and it would be the same job...really just a silly waste of time...change the law get her in there and get to work.
Whoa .....sure a lot of venting on this site!! Can't we all just get along?
Seriously ....what this country needs (and has needed for a long time) is a Jewish mother to run the land.
Hey ....she'd balance the budget, make you eat all your vegetables, put tremendous guilt on you if you f****ed up, hit you in the head with a wooden spoon is you misbehaved, make you go to Temple on the Sabbath, made sure you didn't spend more than you earn, make you save a few bucks here and there, always look for the best deals in goods, put cardboard or paper in your shoes if the soles had holes in them (Nu ...the tops look good!), contribute to those who were more in need ....and your allowance would be five bucks a week ...but only if you did household chores.
Is Hillary Jewish?
This Korean "War" (really a "Police Action") vet, at his advanced age, has decided to adopt a new mantra ...."If I can't see it from Corona del Mar (California), it doesn't f****ing matter!"
Of course, my kids and grandkids will have to suffer the slings and arrows of this country's inept "leadership" for years to come. I feel sorrow for them. But I'm so old .....(insert mantra here).
In my next life, I'm returning as a do-nothing politician with all dogs, no kids! How bitchin' that'll be!
How did the current bunch of yahoos (Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Franke, Waters, and so on ad nauseum) get in control of the government of these United States? Hell's bells, we elected them!
The eligibility of Ms. Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State cannot be a more serious issue than the eligibility of Mr. Obama's election as the President of the United States. Abuses of the Constitution are wrong in all forms, none the less, how many times have we told our children that two wrongs don't make a right? The Constitution is not a document to be trifled with lightly, the men who wrote it, had risked life, limb and fortune for this document which they drafted for their posterity and the ages to come. On what authority can we allow "Saxbe fixes" to skirt the letter and spirit of this document? We do not swear allegiance to a president or party as a servant of this country, but to the Constitution, to uphold and defend it, for it is that document which protects our rights and prevents us from slipping quietly into tyranny. That Mr. Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen is not a quaint little technicality to be overlooked in light of his historical election breaking the color barrier and risk of disenfranchising the will of the voters. A vote cast for an ineligible candidate, is an invalid ballot, and therefore they cannot be harmed by "disenfranchisement". The Democratic Party and Mr. Obama bear the burden of that disenfranchisement, not those who seek to uphold the rule of law. The only harm the voters can suffer is the ignoring of the "inconvenient and outdated language" of the Constitution. Who will speak for them when the First Amendment becomes a quaint, but outdated notion to a tyrannical government? I humbly implore Judicial Watch to weigh in on this matter and have the courage of convictions for which they have stood for so many times before.
“No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;” Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
Application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case to absolve Obama from any technicalities of the Constitution is not germane to the discussion. A common misconception is that the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment confers natural born citizenship upon everyone born in the United States whether or not they were born to an illegal alien. Senators Howard and Trumbull the two Senators primarily credited as authoring the Fourteenth Amendment, make it clear that Article 2, Section 1 provisions which require the “natural born citizenship” eligibility for POTUS remains intact.
Howard presented to the court majority in the misapplied Wong Ark Can case that he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law” which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race - which is exactly what was intended. Senator Howard also said in May, 1868 that the “Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country.”
Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard followed that up by stating that: “The word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Senator Howard clearly intended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” does not apply to anyone other than American citizens.
The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
By his own admission as stated on his website and on Factcheck.org, Obama has clearly stated:
“‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children…”
1. Barack Obama Sr. was a Britsh subject.
2. Barack Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
3. Barack Obama Jr. was born to a British subject.
4. Barack Obama Jr. was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
5. ‘[S]ubject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’ means ‘complete jurisdiction thereof,’ not owing allegiance to anybody else.
6. The authors of the 14th Amendment recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.
7. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr. were subject to another foreign power.
8. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Jr. owed at least partial allegiance to another foreign power.
9. Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
10. Barack Obama Jr. does not meet the Constitutional eligibility requirement to be natural born citizen.
Tue, 12/16/2008 - 2:13pm — Brian Rabbit (not verified)
with all of the corruption that has been documented (vote tampering, voter intimidation etc)during the past two Bush terms which has gone unresolved why should this matter?
Jeez...Nice to see all the nut cases are out doing their usual shtick. Who cares about illegal wars, torture, the collapse of our economy, the incredible loss of jobs, and our already shredded constitution? The lies about Obama's birth certificate are typical of right wing idiots, but if the law prevents Hillary from being SOS, which I seriously doubt, so be it. I don't like to react to angry assholes blather, but you people really put me to the test.
This is about fraud, people. Obama, uh - I mean Barry Soetoro, is an Indonesian citizen. He became one when there were no reciprocal citizenship agreements with the United States. Therefore, he would have had to renounce his US citizenship in order to become and Indonesian.
That fact alone makes him ineligible to be President.
Moreover, his own Kenyan grandmother admitted that he was born in Mumbassa, Kenya.
That disqualifies him - he is NOT a natural born citizen, as mandated by the US Constitution.
Since he was an Indonesian citizen when he and his mother moved to Hawaii, where his sister was born (and there is ample documentation to support that claim) he would have had to obtain a VISA in order to enter the US. He will not relinquish his his birth certificate or his college records, which would most likely identify him as a Resident Alien.
There is also substantial evidence to support the contention that his puported birth certificate is a fraud. When analyzed, it appears to have been photoshopped and layered. Underneath the layering one will find his sister's name.
Obama is a fraud, plain and simple. This is happening in order to provide a precedent so that other foreign nationals (like Arnold Swarzenegger) can be considered for the office of the presidency.
I believe Judicial Watch tipped its hand regarding its real motivation when it said, "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."
This is nothing more than typical republican obstructionism, trying to undermine another Democratic administration before it has even begun. They did it to her husband, and now they want to do it again to Obama. We democrats are sick and tired of this, and we're not going to stand idly by and let it happen again. There will be no more impeachments for Presidents who lie about extramarital sex, while Presidents who lead us into illegal wars go unpunished.
I love Judical Watch? When it suits them they 'cherry pick' the Constitution for what they like! All this flack about Hillary Clinton?
You know what? The Constitution technically claims the government can't collect taxes either, but I don't see you guys going after the IRS about it.
Here's the deal, if YOU can 'absolve' and 'dissolve' the IRS then I will support throwing Clinton out on a Constitutional technicality! I think that is fair and balanced!
My biggest question is if there are such doubts about Obama's birth, why don't he just show the stupid thing and be over with it. The fact that this has gone on as long as it has makes me wander about his legitimacy as President. As far as the Constitution is concerned, this nation would be in much better condition if it were adhered to. The founding fathers were wiser than they are ever given credit for and knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the thing. It is a safe guard against the very things that we have had to tolerate for the past many years. Both parties virtually ignore the sacred document and both parties are bought and paid for. Our problems are dished out by the congress but they are instigated from a power that goes higher than they are. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are secret organization, secret societies and pure evil groups of people that exist today and they are pulling all the strings. When you want to find a rat, you have to really go into the dark.
In 1909, after having increased the salary of the Secretary of State,(459) Congress reduced it to the former figure so that a Member of the Senate at the time the increase was voted would be eligible for that
office.(460)
(459) 34 Stat. 948 (1907).
(460) 35 Stat. 626 (1909). Congress followed this precedent when the President wished to appoint a Senator as Attorney General and the salary had been increased pursuant to a process under which Congress did not need to vote to approve but could vote to disapprove. The salary was temporarily reduced to its previous level. 87 Stat. 697 (1975). See also 89 Stat. 1108 (1975) (reducing the salary of a member of the Federal Maritime Commission in order to qualify a Representative).
There has even been a case before the Supreme Court on this question.
In Ex parte Albert Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937), the Court declined to pass upon the validity
of such an appointment in a case concerning the appointment of Justice Black to the Court.
Where there is disagreement over the interpretation to give to a legal provision, one tries to determine the INTENT of the drafters.
The INTENT of the Constitutional provision is to prevent a sitting member of Congress from using his position to get a cushy sinecure.
For over a century, there has been a consensus that the provision must be interpreted broadly and not used to block appointments where there is no corruption involved.
Not counting H. Clinton, there have already been several high-level appointments made possible by the remedy of reducing the salary to a prior amount: two secretaries of State, an attorney general and a Supreme Court Justice.
All you nuts with your crazy conspiracy theories about Obama need to crawl back under the rock from whence you came. Barack's mother was a US citizen and he was born in Hawaii, get over it. He is a natural-born citizen of the US. The Constitution leaves it up to Congress to determine the definiton of natural-born citizen. So I took the time to look up what Congress has defined it as (since we are a nation of laws, which so many of you love to talk about, but rarely truly believe).
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ...
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...." 8 USC 1401
According to the above, even if Obama was born outside the US (which he wasn't), and even though his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, Obama is a natural-born citizen because his mother is a citizen.
Can't wait to see you wackos crying on Inauguration Day.
Thu, 12/11/2008 - 6:10pm — thomas bonsell (not verified)
Hillary Clinton hasn't been appointed to anything yet, and the action of Judicial Watch indicates it knows nothing about the Constitution.
Barack Obama can't appoint any officer of the United States until after he becomes president. He has only indicated who he will NOMINATE for appointment after being sworn in as President.
Judicial Watch is looking at the wrong constitutional provision. It is Article II Section 2, paragraph 2, that covers the subject and it says, "He (the President, not the president-elect) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... all other Officers of the United States ..."
That clearly means that the procedure is that Obama as President shall send to the Senate a list of NOMINEES he wants to appoint. And only after the Senate approves the nominees can Obama appoint anyone.
Since the Senate convenes January 3 and the inauguration is January 20, Clinton can remain a senator until Obama is sworn in and can resign her Senate seat at any time before her appointment in order to comply with the Constitution. In fact, she can remain a senator until after the Senate consents to her NOMINATION and resign before Obama makes a formal appointment.
I'm Scottish and live in the UK. By all means tell me to stay out of your business but I'd just like to state that it's everyone's business just as the UK should be yours etc etc.
Has anyone really looked around lately and wondered what the hell is going on? I have. I have NEVER been (and I hate to even use this word but...here goes..) a Conspiracy buff BUT, we have issues people. Global ones.
I agree wholeheartedly with those of you who believe it is of fundamental importance to keep your constitution intact. Not because i believe in nations and competition between them (because I believe in a single Earth)but what concerns me is the World government we are accelerating toward. And, I would hope many of you would seriously consider this: It makes no difference whether you vote Rep or Dem (or here: Labour or Conservative). They are two sides of a single coin. That coin is owned by others who spin the coin occasionally to make you believe you have a choice. Meanwhile your constitution means NOTHING to these people.
Please start to recognise this.
Ron paul didn't have a hope because Ron Paul wasn't playing the game with these people. He relied on "The People". But you're right, "The People" seem not to care much anymore but there's a growing number who do. www.campaignforliberty.com.
Your government, your DOD/Pentagon, your PNAC document, your CIA, Trilateral Commission, CFR, FED etc... All are killing your constitution on purpose and for a purpose. Please start to believe this for your sakes and the rest of us. Your country is getting used and abused by these people holding the coin simply because it is America who have the firepower to create the world they want and the capability to control it. Meanwhile anyone else - Russia, China, Iran etc, are held up in your media - by your government - as the bad guys. It's a con I hate to tell you. Clinton, Bush, Obama, whoever - all sold out to the guys who promised them their positions. That's it in a nutshell. So DO something about it.
Well looks like it's business as usual in Washington, DC as quickly and quietly on December 11, 2008, the House of Representatives and Congress passed S.J. Res 46 which in part rolls back the compensation and other emoluments of the Secretary of State to those in effect January 1, 2007, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 2007, and ending at noon of January 3, 2013. Mind you, the salary of the current Secretary of State is not retroactively being adjusted back to the salary before January 1, 2008. So that being the case, how can you pass S.J. Res. 46 in good conscience.
There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause that any sitting Representative or Congressman is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when there current term expires.
I am appalled at our Representatives and Congressmen that their actions taken on S.J. Res 46 are in direct violation of the United States Constitution that they affirmed to uphold when they were sworn into office.
I really don't care who is nominated for the position of Secretary of State as long as they were not in the House or Senate when the salary of the Secretary of State was increased on January 1, 2008. The point that the House and Senate feel that they can disregard the Constitution of the United States and that S.J. Res 46 reverses the salary is in direct breach of the Constitution. Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
If you agree that the House of Representatives and United States Senate are in violation of the United States Constitution then it’s time to take a stand and let them know.
Gosh Mr. Finton do you think we really care? Is this how you spend your donors money? Of all the legal issues in our country, you are worried that Hillary Clinton might become Secretary of State? This is your big worry? Why don't you drive down to your local court house and do some pro bono work for the poor and help someone in need. It won't make big headlines, but you might make a difference and help those in need instead of wasting our time.
How do you figure the story is over if she resigns from the Senate? The language of the Constitution prohibits the emolument increase appointment "during the term elected". Her resignation does not change the term for which she was elected.
Take the Article 1 Section 6 clause of the Constitution and note where the commas are placed. Then analyze by normal rules of english composition AND also versus what is and what is not ambiguous interpretation. Also consider the Constitution, and what it provides for in its entirey, and conclude whether that clause is only about salary.
Hillary Clinton was elected for a six year term, and committed her service to the US Senate as a Senator from New York by taking and signing the following oath of her office:
I 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.
Hillary attested: "and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." I submit that to well and faithfully discharge her duties as a US Senator, taking a new job and resigning from one that she gave oath to perform for her elected term is a slap in the face to the voters that elected her...nobody twisted her arm to win the office for which she was elected.
Now, is it possible that the Constitution framers recognized that an elected official is expected to faithfully fulfill the term of the elected office as long as they are physically and mentally competent to do so, and not simply use it as a stepladder to gain recognition for appointment to a higher position?
Article 1, Section 6 (quoted in part) No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
For "during such time" to literally apply to "which shall have been created", there has to be an absence of the comma at the end of "created" OR the addition of a comma after "increased". Is there ambiguity with all the commas? Or is there intent to be able to distinguish during a Senator's term in office versus a Senator no longer in Office? Cannot a Senator push a bill or vote to increase the salary of a civil office that the Senator expects to be appointed into after their elected term? That is also collusionary.
What if Hillary had been appointed to her Senate seat and not elected?
living in america you do not know what is going on in other countries,i.e. what america is doing and has been doing to other countries.Obama is backed by brzinski thats enough to know. carter the christian little farter starter gave indonesia the weapons to massacre east timor in a facile way.The fact americans actually went out and voted is proof they are clueless.a no vote by populace is whats needed.
want to stop this agenda from happening? it will take sacrifice. here is how.do not go to work , do not drive, store food for a month or so more the better.no pay billds, no go to movires buy anything no television, no newspapers, nothjing , not a god damned thing and see how fast this thing blows.it is called clogged system.
I love how these morons quote the letters of the law as if they are the bible. then we see these stories of laws like you can only beat your wife on sunday in alabama, or jaywalking in a mall parking lot in minneapolis. People its a stupid fucking law. thats it! "but its the LAW". these people that whine about the law being some godly tradition (american police officers were formed less than 200 year ago) are probably the same people that step out of the shower to take a piss. fuck them and their absurdly misguided passions. at least obama got the most votes! fuck you 24% that still support bush. your support of bush and his policies that destroy american power are hurting america way more than al qaeda could ever dream to.
Bush did not violate the constitution nor did he make up any new presidential powers. Bush just knew all the powers of the office he entered and used them all to the fullest. You people need to do some research on the country you live in. President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in 1861. Roosevelt put over 120,000 Japanese Americans into 10 internment camps. ALL LEGAL ACTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. There are many examples of presidents using the full power of the presidency which makes what you people consider Bush's so-called illegal actions pale by comparison. As to the war crimes Bush supposedly committed just think about the fact that if this was WW2 they would have just shot the prisoners at Gitmo.
Furthermore you people need to do some more research on what is legal in war. The constitution does not follow invading troops into the country they are waging war on. The true law is the military law of the conquering nation. (Dow v. Johnson). There was also a question as to the true status of insurgent fighters that do not wear uniforms. There was a question as to if they are afforded protections under the Geneva convention that they are NOT signatories to nor meet most of the qualifications for protection there in.
About to the detention of the prisoners at Gitmo read your history specifically the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 which allows the president to hold enemy aliens in the US in a location of his choosing. The act says nothing of the duration for holding them. Gitmo although in Cuba is sovereign US territory seized in the Spanish American war.
So by the definition of some of you FDR was the biggest criminal ever and lets not even mention the great emancipator... Bush never rounded up all Muslims and put them in concentration camps. And to those who want to mention the patriot act just think about that old cartoon with the dancing bill that was educating you on how law is made...
"n 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Quirin that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. The writ was suspended in Hawaii during World War II" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Not sure about this guys but the people who assisted the bombers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are saboteurs in my opinion and should qualify for indefinite detention. The guys who fight for the people who cut of Nick Byrd's head or those that bombed the USS Cole are unlawful combatants period by every international rule of war.
Very interesting. I hope Hillary will not become Secretary of State. If this is the law than it applies to the corrupt Clintons too. Go get em". The law is the las.
Subscribe via RSS
Comments
Good!
Good. The more the corruption, the deeper the corruption, the greater the chances that eventually, some day, when a tipping point is reached, a mob will descend on D.C. and will leave no building standing and no politico alive. Then I will laugh. Muhahahahah! Funny.
To all of you
who think this isn't a big deal, I encourage you to reconsider this stance. I notice a lot of people say that the prohibiting clause is outdated, but remember that it is in place to stop corruption. Corruption is never outdated.
God help us all...
Pretty sad coming from a guy that supposedly taught constitutional law. And what's with this Democracy thing people keep talking about? Last time I knew, this country was a Constitutional Republic.
Clinton Corruption
Wake up, people. It's not a "wingnut" thing, it's an "American citizens getting sick and tired of corruption" thing.
Corruption runs rampant in the White House. Period. If you don't realize this, then you're living on another planet. Please stay home on future election days.
I thought...
I thought Obama was all for restoring the constitution. This to me is backwards.
And for everyone saying go after Bush, I agree.
How can you say this is trivial? It is clear cut. She can not serve. That is good news.
The constitution should and MUST be restored and you can not bend the rules when it does not agree with you. You MUST say it is what it is and move on. Find another person for the job and move on constitutionally.
The Constitution is supposed
The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. If we don't have a Constitution then what can't the government do. The Constitution was created to protect and guarantee our Rights, without the Constitution our rights well no longer be protected.
Follow the Constitution or we will have a Tyranny
Ineligible to be President, too
The Constitution consistently refers to the President as "he," while it refers to other offices in generic terms. Apparently, the Founding Fathers intended the President to be a man.
Hillary probably wasn't eligible to run for Prez, either.
Tue, 12/02/2008 - 23:09 —
Tue, 12/02/2008 - 23:09 — Anonymous (not verified)
This is such a dumb issue.
This is such a dumb issue. I mean really??? We shouldn't let someone serve because the salary increased... C'mon people, stop trying to make news, this is way overblown. If they lower the salary, what is the problem???
So tell us, what part of the Constitution, would you consider, is worth defending?
great
?did the law that gave the raise to sec. of state ,also give a raise to the president,and did obama vote for it like hillary.....?
Will the real hypocrites please stand up?
But oh what a wad the "liberals" get into over Roe v Wade, which came to be because of a vague "penumbra" of the Constitution guaranteeing right to privacy which, to them, trumps the right to life. Better not be too hard on the Constitution or your activist judges will be out of jobs.
Hypocrisy is in both camps, liberal and "conservative" - especially "neo-cons" like Bush and Cheny. Please don't tar Constitutionalists with the "necon" brush;
Constitutionalists hate Bush's flagrant disregard for the law of the land but two wrongs have never made a right. If you really want rule of law instead of rule by whimsical tyrants, then demand that the assaults on the Constitution halt NOW. It has to start somewhere - Obama has a simple solution; if he's genuinely a natural born citizen, all he has to do is produce the document that proves it.
Is it better to live under a "liberal" tyranny than a "conservative" tyranny? What's going to stop tyranny if not the Constitution?
Emotional Reaction...
I see a lot of emotional reactions here (both ways). At this point in time, I don't have the information necessary to express an opinion directly on this issue, and I doubt any other posters truly do either.
Forget emotion. This is a matter of law. It was violated or it was not. Those stating that the law is too contemporary or it's just a "minor" violation or that the real issue is Obama's citizenship (a DIFFERENT issue) are ignorant of LAW - what it is for, how it works, and who must comply with it and, most importantly, why.
"In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
~ Justice Louis Brandeis
Based on the above statement, we have been screwed for a VERY LONG TIME, but I fail to see how this diminishes the weight of what Justice Brandeis was trying to communicate or the value we should place on it as a society. IF there is a violation of law, then that violation will have a remedy applied to it. IF there is no violation, then carry on. The amount of criminality that has come before or exists now does (should) not change this.
God damn piece of paper
Don't you know that everyone we elect, escpecially the President, believes the constitution to be just a god damn piece of paper?
you need a revolution an
you need a revolution an insurrection the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1776.
because you are now in the hands of very corrupt and very dangerous people.
It will only worsen if you do not act .
umm..she is worth tens of
umm..she is worth tens of millions, so I'm sure she isn't making the move to cash in on that extra few thousand bucks..you could make the salary zero and it would be the same job...really just a silly waste of time...change the law get her in there and get to work.
Yes
Judicial Watch is right.
The U.S. Constitution
Whoa .....sure a lot of venting on this site!! Can't we all just get along?
Seriously ....what this country needs (and has needed for a long time) is a Jewish mother to run the land.
Hey ....she'd balance the budget, make you eat all your vegetables, put tremendous guilt on you if you f****ed up, hit you in the head with a wooden spoon is you misbehaved, make you go to Temple on the Sabbath, made sure you didn't spend more than you earn, make you save a few bucks here and there, always look for the best deals in goods, put cardboard or paper in your shoes if the soles had holes in them (Nu ...the tops look good!), contribute to those who were more in need ....and your allowance would be five bucks a week ...but only if you did household chores.
Is Hillary Jewish?
This Korean "War" (really a "Police Action") vet, at his advanced age, has decided to adopt a new mantra ...."If I can't see it from Corona del Mar (California), it doesn't f****ing matter!"
Of course, my kids and grandkids will have to suffer the slings and arrows of this country's inept "leadership" for years to come. I feel sorrow for them. But I'm so old .....(insert mantra here).
In my next life, I'm returning as a do-nothing politician with all dogs, no kids! How bitchin' that'll be!
Time for a beer and then my nap.
Good luck to all you wannabes.
(mantra here)
Bob King
non-Jew
Yahoos in Governement
How did the current bunch of yahoos (Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Franke, Waters, and so on ad nauseum) get in control of the government of these United States? Hell's bells, we elected them!
The Constitution - Supreme Law of the Land
The eligibility of Ms. Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State cannot be a more serious issue than the eligibility of Mr. Obama's election as the President of the United States. Abuses of the Constitution are wrong in all forms, none the less, how many times have we told our children that two wrongs don't make a right? The Constitution is not a document to be trifled with lightly, the men who wrote it, had risked life, limb and fortune for this document which they drafted for their posterity and the ages to come. On what authority can we allow "Saxbe fixes" to skirt the letter and spirit of this document? We do not swear allegiance to a president or party as a servant of this country, but to the Constitution, to uphold and defend it, for it is that document which protects our rights and prevents us from slipping quietly into tyranny. That Mr. Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen is not a quaint little technicality to be overlooked in light of his historical election breaking the color barrier and risk of disenfranchising the will of the voters. A vote cast for an ineligible candidate, is an invalid ballot, and therefore they cannot be harmed by "disenfranchisement". The Democratic Party and Mr. Obama bear the burden of that disenfranchisement, not those who seek to uphold the rule of law. The only harm the voters can suffer is the ignoring of the "inconvenient and outdated language" of the Constitution. Who will speak for them when the First Amendment becomes a quaint, but outdated notion to a tyrannical government? I humbly implore Judicial Watch to weigh in on this matter and have the courage of convictions for which they have stood for so many times before.
“No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;” Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
Application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case to absolve Obama from any technicalities of the Constitution is not germane to the discussion. A common misconception is that the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment confers natural born citizenship upon everyone born in the United States whether or not they were born to an illegal alien. Senators Howard and Trumbull the two Senators primarily credited as authoring the Fourteenth Amendment, make it clear that Article 2, Section 1 provisions which require the “natural born citizenship” eligibility for POTUS remains intact.
Howard presented to the court majority in the misapplied Wong Ark Can case that he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law” which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race - which is exactly what was intended. Senator Howard also said in May, 1868 that the “Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country.”
Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard followed that up by stating that: “The word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Senator Howard clearly intended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” does not apply to anyone other than American citizens.
The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
By his own admission as stated on his website and on Factcheck.org, Obama has clearly stated:
“‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children…”
1. Barack Obama Sr. was a Britsh subject.
2. Barack Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
3. Barack Obama Jr. was born to a British subject.
4. Barack Obama Jr. was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
5. ‘[S]ubject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’ means ‘complete jurisdiction thereof,’ not owing allegiance to anybody else.
6. The authors of the 14th Amendment recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.
7. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr. were subject to another foreign power.
8. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Jr. owed at least partial allegiance to another foreign power.
9. Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
10. Barack Obama Jr. does not meet the Constitutional eligibility requirement to be natural born citizen.
And Barack Obama Jr.'s Mother?
What? She didn't exist? Or, are You of 'those People' believing Women have no role in society? Give Me a break.
What Does It Matter?
with all of the corruption that has been documented (vote tampering, voter intimidation etc)during the past two Bush terms which has gone unresolved why should this matter?
Not corrupt
The raise was by executive order...this was not herself giving her future self a raise, so exactly what corruption would this be?
If you ask me the intent of the constitution is not violated, and this is an issue for haters, just like a birth certificate issue.
Jeez...Nice to see all the
Jeez...Nice to see all the nut cases are out doing their usual shtick. Who cares about illegal wars, torture, the collapse of our economy, the incredible loss of jobs, and our already shredded constitution? The lies about Obama's birth certificate are typical of right wing idiots, but if the law prevents Hillary from being SOS, which I seriously doubt, so be it. I don't like to react to angry assholes blather, but you people really put me to the test.
Fraud
This is about fraud, people. Obama, uh - I mean Barry Soetoro, is an Indonesian citizen. He became one when there were no reciprocal citizenship agreements with the United States. Therefore, he would have had to renounce his US citizenship in order to become and Indonesian.
That fact alone makes him ineligible to be President.
Moreover, his own Kenyan grandmother admitted that he was born in Mumbassa, Kenya.
That disqualifies him - he is NOT a natural born citizen, as mandated by the US Constitution.
Since he was an Indonesian citizen when he and his mother moved to Hawaii, where his sister was born (and there is ample documentation to support that claim) he would have had to obtain a VISA in order to enter the US. He will not relinquish his his birth certificate or his college records, which would most likely identify him as a Resident Alien.
There is also substantial evidence to support the contention that his puported birth certificate is a fraud. When analyzed, it appears to have been photoshopped and layered. Underneath the layering one will find his sister's name.
Obama is a fraud, plain and simple. This is happening in order to provide a precedent so that other foreign nationals (like Arnold Swarzenegger) can be considered for the office of the presidency.
We are going to hell in a handbasket.
Hillary Clinton
I believe Judicial Watch tipped its hand regarding its real motivation when it said, "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."
This is nothing more than typical republican obstructionism, trying to undermine another Democratic administration before it has even begun. They did it to her husband, and now they want to do it again to Obama. We democrats are sick and tired of this, and we're not going to stand idly by and let it happen again. There will be no more impeachments for Presidents who lie about extramarital sex, while Presidents who lead us into illegal wars go unpunished.
Funny
This is all nonsense - I mean, this website, the watch group, the articles herein. GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!
Absolve The Law When It Suits You
I love Judical Watch? When it suits them they 'cherry pick' the Constitution for what they like! All this flack about Hillary Clinton?
You know what? The Constitution technically claims the government can't collect taxes either, but I don't see you guys going after the IRS about it.
Here's the deal, if YOU can 'absolve' and 'dissolve' the IRS then I will support throwing Clinton out on a Constitutional technicality! I think that is fair and balanced!
Get used to it
No one will do anything about it. Watch and see.
Obama/Constitution
My biggest question is if there are such doubts about Obama's birth, why don't he just show the stupid thing and be over with it. The fact that this has gone on as long as it has makes me wander about his legitimacy as President. As far as the Constitution is concerned, this nation would be in much better condition if it were adhered to. The founding fathers were wiser than they are ever given credit for and knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the thing. It is a safe guard against the very things that we have had to tolerate for the past many years. Both parties virtually ignore the sacred document and both parties are bought and paid for. Our problems are dished out by the congress but they are instigated from a power that goes higher than they are. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are secret organization, secret societies and pure evil groups of people that exist today and they are pulling all the strings. When you want to find a rat, you have to really go into the dark.
The Supreme Court allowed this remedy in 1937
PRECEDENTS FOR CLINTON'S APPOINTMENT:
In 1909, after having increased the salary of the Secretary of State,(459) Congress reduced it to the former figure so that a Member of the Senate at the time the increase was voted would be eligible for that
office.(460)
(459) 34 Stat. 948 (1907).
(460) 35 Stat. 626 (1909). Congress followed this precedent when the President wished to appoint a Senator as Attorney General and the salary had been increased pursuant to a process under which Congress did not need to vote to approve but could vote to disapprove. The salary was temporarily reduced to its previous level. 87 Stat. 697 (1975). See also 89 Stat. 1108 (1975) (reducing the salary of a member of the Federal Maritime Commission in order to qualify a Representative).
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf
There has even been a case before the Supreme Court on this question.
In Ex parte Albert Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937), the Court declined to pass upon the validity
of such an appointment in a case concerning the appointment of Justice Black to the Court.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art1.html
Where there is disagreement over the interpretation to give to a legal provision, one tries to determine the INTENT of the drafters.
The INTENT of the Constitutional provision is to prevent a sitting member of Congress from using his position to get a cushy sinecure.
For over a century, there has been a consensus that the provision must be interpreted broadly and not used to block appointments where there is no corruption involved.
Not counting H. Clinton, there have already been several high-level appointments made possible by the remedy of reducing the salary to a prior amount: two secretaries of State, an attorney general and a Supreme Court Justice.
All you nuts with your
All you nuts with your crazy conspiracy theories about Obama need to crawl back under the rock from whence you came. Barack's mother was a US citizen and he was born in Hawaii, get over it. He is a natural-born citizen of the US. The Constitution leaves it up to Congress to determine the definiton of natural-born citizen. So I took the time to look up what Congress has defined it as (since we are a nation of laws, which so many of you love to talk about, but rarely truly believe).
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ...
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...." 8 USC 1401
According to the above, even if Obama was born outside the US (which he wasn't), and even though his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, Obama is a natural-born citizen because his mother is a citizen.
Can't wait to see you wackos crying on Inauguration Day.
CLINTON 'APPOINTMENT' TO CABINET
Judicial Watch is full of it.
Hillary Clinton hasn't been appointed to anything yet, and the action of Judicial Watch indicates it knows nothing about the Constitution.
Barack Obama can't appoint any officer of the United States until after he becomes president. He has only indicated who he will NOMINATE for appointment after being sworn in as President.
Judicial Watch is looking at the wrong constitutional provision. It is Article II Section 2, paragraph 2, that covers the subject and it says, "He (the President, not the president-elect) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... all other Officers of the United States ..."
That clearly means that the procedure is that Obama as President shall send to the Senate a list of NOMINEES he wants to appoint. And only after the Senate approves the nominees can Obama appoint anyone.
Since the Senate convenes January 3 and the inauguration is January 20, Clinton can remain a senator until Obama is sworn in and can resign her Senate seat at any time before her appointment in order to comply with the Constitution. In fact, she can remain a senator until after the Senate consents to her NOMINATION and resign before Obama makes a formal appointment.
Judicial Watch is only wasting its time.
America wake up.....please!
I'm Scottish and live in the UK. By all means tell me to stay out of your business but I'd just like to state that it's everyone's business just as the UK should be yours etc etc.
Has anyone really looked around lately and wondered what the hell is going on? I have. I have NEVER been (and I hate to even use this word but...here goes..) a Conspiracy buff BUT, we have issues people. Global ones.
I agree wholeheartedly with those of you who believe it is of fundamental importance to keep your constitution intact. Not because i believe in nations and competition between them (because I believe in a single Earth)but what concerns me is the World government we are accelerating toward. And, I would hope many of you would seriously consider this: It makes no difference whether you vote Rep or Dem (or here: Labour or Conservative). They are two sides of a single coin. That coin is owned by others who spin the coin occasionally to make you believe you have a choice. Meanwhile your constitution means NOTHING to these people.
Please start to recognise this.
Ron paul didn't have a hope because Ron Paul wasn't playing the game with these people. He relied on "The People". But you're right, "The People" seem not to care much anymore but there's a growing number who do.
www.campaignforliberty.com.
Your government, your DOD/Pentagon, your PNAC document, your CIA, Trilateral Commission, CFR, FED etc... All are killing your constitution on purpose and for a purpose. Please start to believe this for your sakes and the rest of us. Your country is getting used and abused by these people holding the coin simply because it is America who have the firepower to create the world they want and the capability to control it. Meanwhile anyone else - Russia, China, Iran etc, are held up in your media - by your government - as the bad guys. It's a con I hate to tell you. Clinton, Bush, Obama, whoever - all sold out to the guys who promised them their positions. That's it in a nutshell. So DO something about it.
Best wishes from UK.
H.R. and Congress pass S.J. Res 46 - Sec'ty of State Salary
Well looks like it's business as usual in Washington, DC as quickly and quietly on December 11, 2008, the House of Representatives and Congress passed S.J. Res 46 which in part rolls back the compensation and other emoluments of the Secretary of State to those in effect January 1, 2007, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 2007, and ending at noon of January 3, 2013. Mind you, the salary of the current Secretary of State is not retroactively being adjusted back to the salary before January 1, 2008. So that being the case, how can you pass S.J. Res. 46 in good conscience.
There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause that any sitting Representative or Congressman is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when there current term expires.
I am appalled at our Representatives and Congressmen that their actions taken on S.J. Res 46 are in direct violation of the United States Constitution that they affirmed to uphold when they were sworn into office.
I really don't care who is nominated for the position of Secretary of State as long as they were not in the House or Senate when the salary of the Secretary of State was increased on January 1, 2008. The point that the House and Senate feel that they can disregard the Constitution of the United States and that S.J. Res 46 reverses the salary is in direct breach of the Constitution. Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
If you agree that the House of Representatives and United States Senate are in violation of the United States Constitution then it’s time to take a stand and let them know.
To find out who your Senator is, go to:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
To find out who your Representative is, go to:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Who cares??
Gosh Mr. Finton do you think we really care? Is this how you spend your donors money? Of all the legal issues in our country, you are worried that Hillary Clinton might become Secretary of State? This is your big worry? Why don't you drive down to your local court house and do some pro bono work for the poor and help someone in need. It won't make big headlines, but you might make a difference and help those in need instead of wasting our time.
Sam
Resign of HIllary Clinton
Hillary Clinton can Resign the office of US. Senator from new york And This story is over.
From a citzen of The Netherlands
Really, Citizen of The netherlands?
How do you figure the story is over if she resigns from the Senate? The language of the Constitution prohibits the emolument increase appointment "during the term elected". Her resignation does not change the term for which she was elected.
Is Hillary as Sec of State more than just salary issue?
Take the Article 1 Section 6 clause of the Constitution and note where the commas are placed. Then analyze by normal rules of english composition AND also versus what is and what is not ambiguous interpretation. Also consider the Constitution, and what it provides for in its entirey, and conclude whether that clause is only about salary.
Hillary Clinton was elected for a six year term, and committed her service to the US Senate as a Senator from New York by taking and signing the following oath of her office:
I 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.
Hillary attested: "and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." I submit that to well and faithfully discharge her duties as a US Senator, taking a new job and resigning from one that she gave oath to perform for her elected term is a slap in the face to the voters that elected her...nobody twisted her arm to win the office for which she was elected.
Now, is it possible that the Constitution framers recognized that an elected official is expected to faithfully fulfill the term of the elected office as long as they are physically and mentally competent to do so, and not simply use it as a stepladder to gain recognition for appointment to a higher position?
Article 1, Section 6 (quoted in part)
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
For "during such time" to literally apply to "which shall have been created", there has to be an absence of the comma at the end of "created" OR the addition of a comma after "increased". Is there ambiguity with all the commas? Or is there intent to be able to distinguish during a Senator's term in office versus a Senator no longer in Office? Cannot a Senator push a bill or vote to increase the salary of a civil office that the Senator expects to be appointed into after their elected term? That is also collusionary.
What if Hillary had been appointed to her Senate seat and not elected?
election.
living in america you do not know what is going on in other countries,i.e. what america is doing and has been doing to other countries.Obama is backed by brzinski thats enough to know. carter the christian little farter starter gave indonesia the weapons to massacre east timor in a facile way.The fact americans actually went out and voted is proof they are clueless.a no vote by populace is whats needed.
want to stop this agenda from happening? it will take sacrifice. here is how.do not go to work , do not drive, store food for a month or so more the better.no pay billds, no go to movires buy anything no television, no newspapers, nothjing , not a god damned thing and see how fast this thing blows.it is called clogged system.
I love how these morons
I love how these morons quote the letters of the law as if they are the bible. then we see these stories of laws like you can only beat your wife on sunday in alabama, or jaywalking in a mall parking lot in minneapolis. People its a stupid fucking law. thats it! "but its the LAW". these people that whine about the law being some godly tradition (american police officers were formed less than 200 year ago) are probably the same people that step out of the shower to take a piss. fuck them and their absurdly misguided passions. at least obama got the most votes! fuck you 24% that still support bush. your support of bush and his policies that destroy american power are hurting america way more than al qaeda could ever dream to.
Bush did not violate the
Bush did not violate the constitution nor did he make up any new presidential powers. Bush just knew all the powers of the office he entered and used them all to the fullest. You people need to do some research on the country you live in. President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in 1861. Roosevelt put over 120,000 Japanese Americans into 10 internment camps. ALL LEGAL ACTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. There are many examples of presidents using the full power of the presidency which makes what you people consider Bush's so-called illegal actions pale by comparison. As to the war crimes Bush supposedly committed just think about the fact that if this was WW2 they would have just shot the prisoners at Gitmo.
Furthermore you people need to do some more research on what is legal in war. The constitution does not follow invading troops into the country they are waging war on. The true law is the military law of the conquering nation. (Dow v. Johnson). There was also a question as to the true status of insurgent fighters that do not wear uniforms. There was a question as to if they are afforded protections under the Geneva convention that they are NOT signatories to nor meet most of the qualifications for protection there in.
About to the detention of the prisoners at Gitmo read your history specifically the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 which allows the president to hold enemy aliens in the US in a location of his choosing. The act says nothing of the duration for holding them. Gitmo although in Cuba is sovereign US territory seized in the Spanish American war.
So by the definition of some of you FDR was the biggest criminal ever and lets not even mention the great emancipator... Bush never rounded up all Muslims and put them in concentration camps. And to those who want to mention the patriot act just think about that old cartoon with the dancing bill that was educating you on how law is made...
"n 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Quirin that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus and tried by military commission, making a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. The writ was suspended in Hawaii during World War II" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Not sure about this guys but the people who assisted the bombers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are saboteurs in my opinion and should qualify for indefinite detention. The guys who fight for the people who cut of Nick Byrd's head or those that bombed the USS Cole are unlawful combatants period by every international rule of war.
I agree
Very interesting. I hope Hillary will not become Secretary of State. If this is the law than it applies to the corrupt Clintons too. Go get em". The law is the las.
Hillary appointment
So where does this stand as of today?