Three-Judge Panel Hears Challenge To Hillary Clinton's Eligibility To Serve As Secretary of State

A three-judge panel is hearing a case Wednesday morning that challenges Hillary Clinton's "constitutional eligibility" to serve as the government's Secretary of State. The hearing comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel.

Judicial Watch stipulates that Secretary of State Clinton is ineligible to serve her current public role under Article I, section 6 of the United States constitution:

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.

In a press release, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton explains: "The 'emoluments' or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's resignation. "

Judicial Watch filed numerous unsuccessful lawsuits against the Clintons during the Clinton administration.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[tompoe]

Unlike the previous administration, there is a wealth of talent for this administration to draw from, in the event the judges decide to not allow the appointment to stand. Will the GOP immediately revise history to reflect corruption on the part of Obama/Clinton? Or, will the text of the decision be available for the public to read? All things considered, this is less about a position of power, and more about the Party of Corporate Welfare struggling to remain afloat.

[koppenberg]

I hate to say it in the context of a Clinton related issue, but this hinges on what the meaning of "is" is, or in this case, "shall have been increased".

"Shall have been increased" is the future imperfect, meaning that if a salary increase occurs in the relevant time frame, that's all that matters. It doesn't matter that any past or future changes occur in that time frame or are in effect. So if the salary is X, someone lowers it to W, then raises it back to X, an increase still occurred even if the net result is no change. Similary, if the salary is X, it's raised to Y and lowered back to X, it's the same situation. Some increase occurred along the way (hence the relevance of the "imperfect" tense).

The spirit of the restriction is better expressed by "shall have increased", the future perfect. But that's not what it says, unfortunately.

If my understanding of the grammar is correct (and I may well be totally wrong), then the only way to avoid this nonsense is to amend the Constitution to make the literal words match the obvious spirit of the matter.

[koppenberg]

Now that I think about it some more, "shall have been increased" isn't really future imperfect, I guess it's future perfect passive, which is effectively the same as future perfect in this context.

I don't know, maybe this really is a case of we all know what they meant, and there just is no good, concise way in English to express it and we'll forever be left with the "spirit" thing or else have to put in even longer, even more complex, but expressive­-of-the-sp­irit legalese.

[qwerty911]

FOL, you and your brethren will always lose and argument on substance. WE have IT you lack it. And because you and your other fellow 'sock puppets' like to attack a person personally instead of arguing issues, YOU will always lose the argument.

And if your liberal brethren thinks that her quitting was a form of her selling her state down the river, try defending yourself against the frivolous ethic complaints that were costing her over $500,000. You would have turned tale and ran for the hills like little girls.

Now let's just see how Hillary and others of her ilk like having suits/complaints filed against them. Just Remember, you guys started this pathetic fight. But WE the Republicans have a prediction and I'll let Clubber Lang answer for us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1TxiVhrkZA

[Uggg]

It is amazing how this little thing like the Constitution gets in the way of things, You would think a Constitutional lawyer would have read the document before making appointments to an office. The claim does have Teeth

[helgathewitch]

Republicans are so petty and are proving they only care about themselves not the country.

Its all about revenge and me, me, me.

[Academic]

This late in the day? This lady and her husband have been constantly under the microscope so what is there to know about her that even her most stubborn detractors don't already know? I thought that politics was for grown up and certainly so when it came to representing the interests of one's constituencies - seems I was wrong and the lunatics in Congress have taken over the asylum there. Leave the lady alone.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.

[DCinFrance]

Sorry folks, but this one has legs. The only way to rule around this is to have a ruling on the intent of the clause. And this clause was created to prevent collusion, despotism, etc. True she resigned before she was nominated, but she wouldn't have resigned had not she been offered the appointment, so that's not the ticket. It would have to be shown that the appointment was based upon merit and experience, and that she nor the person doing the appointing profited from that appointment.

The Constitution is not a rubber sheet such that we can dismiss it when it doesn't suit us. You do remember George, don't you (and yes that's a double entendre).

[DCinFrance]

And incidentally, the roll back doesn't count.

[Peter007]

The courts have never ruled in this clause or issue. Its apparent that this clause can be ignored at anytime with some minor legislation. So, can the congress pass a law that allows one to ignor the constitution?

[TruEngineHearing]

The GOP is a party for those who did not graduate from conservatism to liberalism, but instead choked and just became hypocrites. It's almost like the evolution of a galactic star - some can make the transition to higher forms, some can't.

[AProudLiberalDem]

The final evolution of a galactic star is a destructive black hole. I don't get your point.

[Apov]

Perhaps then as you have pointed out the correct analysis might be that we're lost in a black hole created by 30 years of Republican rule?

[mergina]

The Rats in the Republican Sewers NEED THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Can we fit them all in Texas? How about Texas and Mexico? They can go to war with Mexico and take it over. They like war. Yeah, their own country. That sounds nice.

[Beca]

No, how about we ship them all to Alaska, and give them Alaska as their own country! There are already lots of Alaskans who want to be a separate country, and they vote Republican, they love guns, killing animals for fun and destroying the environment, so they should be happy with having all these nuts live among them. Besides, there is plenty of space for them there.
I think that should work well!

[JIzin]

Alaska is very different from Texas. We have a Democratic Senator and historically have been a democratic state. Have you ever been to Alaska??
Its not the bleak picture you paint LoL
What other state in America has no private ownership of gas and minerals and takes the tax on those and invests it for ALL of the states citizens? That is the most Liberal use of material wealth, not from Conservative ideology.

[ramblingjohnny]

And this is coming from the same wackjobs who been asking for Tort reform for the last twenty years!

[Lahonda]

The GOP is not really interested in America's point of view.

It has its own.

[davenav]

And people wonder why our courts are backed up! Judicial Watch, alone, must account for huge amounts of wasted courthouse hours. Why has the GOP allowed itself to be overrun with over-zealous, no-case-having, nutbags?

[NoSillyName]

Those people need to stop trying to tear down Obama's Administration and do something FOR the Country they supposedly serve.

[davenav]

They never have, why start now?

[LemonMeringue]

Two words for them:

ELECTORAL LANDSLIDE

I'm happy they are taking it so hard.

[nana4g]

I thought we have been there and done that prior to and during Confirmation hearings. My head is spinning with all the work the oppositionites are into: Czar Patrol, Birthers, Deathers, Liars, Censurerers, Judgers, Lawsuiters, they are bored with the regular business of the people.

We need to suspend their paychecks and their benefits until they do the work of the people. They are all engaged in their own agendas. What has happened to working?