Justice Dept Asks Judge To Dismiss Anti-Clinton Suit

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that argues that Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot legally serve as secretary of state.

The suit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is based on an obscure section of the Constitution called the emoluments clause. It says no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if the pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term.

Clinton was a senator when the secretary of state's salary was raised to $191,300. Congress lowered the salary back to $186,600 so she could take the post.

The department says that remedy has been used so several other members of Congress from both parties could serve in the Cabinet. The department says the lawsuit, which calls for Clinton's removal from office, has no merit.

Judicial Watch, which has pursued several suits against Clinton and other officials over the years, filed the suit on behalf of State Department employee David Rodearmel. It says Rodearmel would violate the oath he took as a foreign service officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution by working for Clinton.

The Justice Department says Rodearmel does not have the legal right to sue because he has not been personally harmed by Clinton taking the position.

Comments

[StoicRep]

04:43 PM on 06/14/2009

I believe the point is being missed that this is a constitutional issue, and anyone ought to be able to bring a suit to press such an issue if the Congress does not find fault with an emolument. However, in this case, there was no breach.
Congress lowered the salary, precluding a suit.

[DannyDanson]

09:33 AM on 05/22/2009

Can Rodearmel spell "Resignation"
If he can't work for Clinton, no one's making him stay, non-issue, go home sir.

[BillMelater]

09:19 AM on 05/22/2009

Gingrich wishes he had an Anti-Clinton suit... He'd wear it everywhere!

[Okieborn]

08:59 AM on 05/22/2009

The Law Is No Longer Applicable in America !!
Just Keep Giving Passes !!!

[2Bfair]

01:04 PM on 05/22/2009

Eric Holder also helped the Cintons pardon Marc Rich, while Denise was contributing to Bill's Library and Hillary's Senate campaign. It's a club.

[bearhug]

08:35 AM on 05/22/2009

Its interesting that a ridiculous law suit by Judicial Watch garners the attention of the media when a new FEC complaint exposing an FEC immunity agreement covering Hillary Clinton has been totally ignored.
A press release and web site on the subject at www.hillcap.org details how the FEC used a "Conciliation Agreement" that fined Hillary's Senate campaign treasurer for filing 3 false FEC reports hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Peter Paul for "Event 39", Hillary's largest fundraiser, to extend immunity to Hillary and her campaign for EVERYTHING Hillary did during her entire campaign.
The immunity from investigation was subject to Hillary's campaign filing a correct amended FEC report on January 30, 2006. Yet again, the FEC report hid from the public what DOJ Prosecutor Zeidenberg told a jury in the Clinton Finance Director trial in 2005 was a criminal act- hiding the fact that Peter Paul gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary's campaign! Read the public record - its all out there at www.hillcap.org

[Tommygun264]

06:08 AM on 05/22/2009

Wasn't Judicial Watch first formed as a hit squad aimed at getting Bill Clinton impeached? Gee, ain't it a coinkydink that they are now grasping at legal straws in an attempt to get Hillary?

[chulanow]

02:40 AM on 05/22/2009

Another frivolous lawsuit , what a waste of time and money!

[S1m0n]

02:02 AM on 05/22/2009

That looks like an arguable tort to me. It might be that the remedy of lowering salaries satisfies the law, but absent a judgement to that effect, there's no way to be certain.

[Middleclassvotingbloc]

12:27 AM on 05/22/2009

This is crazy. I do hope that this Rodermel fellow has resigned by now. I am sure his working environment must be pretty strained if he has not left.

[damenss]

11:16 PM on 05/21/2009

Keep piling your stunts, sins, on the right. Others are keeping a tally for the people.

Keep defining yourselves only by your stunts. As your exclusive reliance! People will tell the GOP in due course what they think of such palpable attempt to insult their intelligence. Do they not spot the missing substance when they see only stunts churned out?

[sippewissett]

10:15 PM on 05/21/2009

What utter nonsense. How annoying that our courts are hearing suits of this stupidity instead of dealing with cases that are substantive. I hate hearing about frivolous lawsuits. This one is a beaut!

[klondiker]

07:05 PM on 05/21/2009

The intent of that clause is to prevent people from benefitting financially, by raising the salary of a position and later occupying that position.

Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to get five thousand dollar richer, voted to increase the salary of cabinet positions three years ago, in the hope that she may, one day become secretary of state??

Second, even if you believe this ridiculous theory, the salary has already been decreased, to there's no conflict of interest.

JW has far too much time and far too much money.

[2Bfair]

01:08 PM on 05/22/2009

I guess the hope was to prevent the usually powerful, Consitutionally significant role of SoS from being used as a political consulation prize. I understand it was important to neuralize the Clintons and their bitter followers, and that it is working, just sad to see it done that way.

[MAH999]

07:03 PM on 05/21/2009

Isn't it hilarious when these "frivolous lawsuit" conservatives use the courts for their petty nonsense? The definition of a frivolous lawsuit -- one that is filed by someone else.

[ronnie423]

06:47 PM on 05/21/2009

Who the hell is David Rodearmel ?

[whitehawk]

06:47 PM on 05/21/2009

Of all the 'acts' she could have been charged for and this one makes the headlines years later? Go figure.

[TallyLass]

08:56 PM on 05/21/2009

So. True.