Secretary of what?

“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 . . .” (Article I, Section 6, U.S. Constitution)

That pretty much precludes Hillary Clinton from accepting a cabinet post, doesn’t it?

The time for which she was elected is from Noon, January 3, 2007 until Noon January 3, 2013.

The emoluments for cabinet positions were increased from $186,600 in 2007 to $191,300 in 2008.

(It precludes not only Senator Clinton but any other senator elected in 2004 or 2006. It does not apply to any representatives because they’ve just been re-elected.)

16 thoughts on “Secretary of what?”

  1. It might preclude her from accepting a post right now in the Bush administration, but as long as she resigned before being appointed by Obama after he takes office, I think it’s OK, no?

  2. That does not solve the problem because of the clause “during the time for which [s]he was elected.” She was elected for a time that runs until January 2013.

  5. The work around used before, which is contrary to the plain language of the Constitution, has never been tested in court. Think Hillary might inspire a challenge?

  6. Thanks Luis, I was thinking, “Surely, this has occurred before?” Ken- No challenge forthcoming I’m thinking. Even the Republicans aren’t that dumb! Well….

  7. I think a challenge is inevitable — it’s endemic to our times.

    Better that it comes sooner rather than after she makes a decision at State someone wants to undermine.

  8. Anyone who is harmed by a decision of the Clinton State Department will have standing to challenge the result of the action based on her incapacity to serve.

    Bentsen was not around in Treasury for a long time. All the other ones were in a time when one would not expect a challenge. I think some nut job conservative takes a run at this.

  9. Well, the President-Elect (a former president of the Harvard Law review) was a professor of constitutional law for 12 years. So if he makes this choice, I think we can consider it an informed decision.

  10. But Jill, informed decisions are out of style.

    Happy Thanksgiving to all!

    Here’s to information and all the decisions it inspires!

  11. Lawyers who are now law professors and who graduated from the best law schools wrote memos saying Bush had authority to torture and spy on Americans. It is naive to assume anyone is applying something other than pure political judgment to questions like this.

  12. Did I say that I thought this was anything but a political decision?

    I simply believe that if this decision is made, it will be made by someone who has a nuanced understanding of the matter, has given it thought, and believes it to be defensible.

    There is nothing naive about believing that Obama has a better understanding of the Constitution than do the members of the current administration (or the lawyers they employ). That is exactly what most of us are hoping for.

  13. “during the time for which he was elected”

    It says “he,” so does this really apply to Hillary anyway? 🙂

  14. P.S. I’m not as deep as my sister. Jill goes for the nuances and meanings behind the situation. I go for the play on words.

  15. A Secretary of State should be more valuable than executives who bankrupt corporations. I’d like to see the maximum total compensation at firms we bail out set to to some fraction of this figure.

Comments are closed.