Hillary Clinton Challenged by Judicial Watch

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.

The above passage in the Constitution is being quoted by Judicial Watch as a reason for Hillary Clinton being removed from her Secretary of State position.

Two points should be made: As far as anyone knows, Secretary Clinton did not have a sex change, and the reference in the Constitution specifically says HE. The Fathers of the document were not all wise and knowing in predicting the future, and made a mistake. If they were wiser they could have written "that person" instead of "he".

Secondly, the phrase "Time for which he was elected" is not the same as saying two years for a House Representative or six years for a Senator, the maximum allowable for each office. That "TIME" can be interpreted as being ended when the office holder resigns.

Judicial Watch tries to give the impression that is a purely objective guardian of the Constitution and its Laws.

For starters, its officers need to take a course in BIOLOGY first!

Comments

[wisewomcat]

I always understood this clause to guard against the members of either house creating a new position, and then having one of them fill it. The Emoluments part is supposed to be basically "You can't raise raise your own salary."

But I think the overwhelming theme is that they can't pass laws that would benefit themselves or their office.

By the way, your first point is weak.

[Norman Cressy - Huffpost Blogger]

[Norman Cressy - Huffpost Blogger]

I won't argue about my first point being weak.
What irritates me about strict constructi­onist--and I am not commenting about wisewomcat--is that the "strict" ones say the Constitution means what it says--unless it doesn't suit their ideas and views.
Then the strict constructionists become contortion constructionists. I am not a strict constructionist, but my "weak" point should be championed by those that are!

[DarkandStormyNight]

Biology aside, these people are just nuts, wacko, crazy and all other things insane. And, the judges who agreed to hear this case are just as bad. I'd have to read the case to see why grounds the judges used for hearing this case. The birthers have been put to bed, let's hope these nuts get the same desert.