Article 1, Sections 1 thru 7

[03_SHOOTER]

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Modified by XIV Amendment) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. (Modified by XVII Amendment)

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

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.

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

[03_SHOOTER]

Commentary?

[HairyEyeball]

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. (Modified by XVII Amendment)


I submit that the above was not 'modified' - at not in the generally defined sense of the word. The Senate, designed as the 'voice' of the Joint and Several States, was, rather, eliminated, and replaced by a variant House, no longer responsible for balancing the interest of their respective States - against those of other States and against those of the populace at large - but instead those of 'the people' - the same who elect members of the lower House - who now directly elect them. Given that the Constitution itself was ratified by the States, and not 'the people', the adoption of Amendment XVII may in a great sense be considered an abrogation (and far from the first) of the Constitution by one of the parties to the 'contract' it represents between the individual State entities and the federal monolith.

Again, from the rhetorical perspective of the Constitution:

Article I identifies a Legislative Branch, a bicameral construct, both drawing on and specifically differing from the British pattern. Neither ‘lords’ nor ‘commoners’ were to be among the citizens, but appropriating the grandeur of the Roman republic, one house was to be the Senate. To insure the interests of the citizenry would ideally receive equal weight, the idea of a “people’s house”, the inspirational name “House of Representatives” was invented. Neither had, as yet, form or constituency, but as rhetorical devices buttressed the intent set forth in the preamble. All that existed at this juncture was what amounted to a first payment on the implied promises of justice, promotion of an indefinable ‘general welfare’, and the possible unification of diversity through – if not a diverse, than at least a bifurcated – unity.
In defining the legislative houses, art again superceded function, as the lower house – that representing the people as a whole – was the first to be defined. Stressing that while apportioned by state population, the representatives were directly elected by the citizens “…chosen every second year by the people of the several states…”, and that it was the most numerous branch, it reinforced the theory that the people were the primary arbiters of their own government: The House was to be composed of a membership that grew as the population grew, while the Senate limited a state to two members, no matter the size or wealth it claimed. The limitation of terms to two years also implied an accountability to the local constituency, and not the ‘government’ per se. The balance of Section 2, dealing with the qualifications and apportionment, further reinforces the art of the drafters: Every effort is made to present this large body as the average citizen’s ‘voice’ in his own governance. The representatives are defined as being ‘of’ the people, subject to rapid replacement if they act against the perceived will of those who elect them, choosing their own officers, and apportioning taxes.
The import of placing this provision first cannot be overestimated. By specifically placing what is, effectively, the least influential branch – but the one closest to a people who desired neither an absolute monarch nor a powerless confederation – first, the framers guaranteed the widest possible approval for the document. The ‘pathos factor’ – the emotional appeal to the broadest base – is subtle, but unquestionable. The logos – the logical appeal of a form of government in which the citizenry theoretically exercised control of who ‘represented’ them and had the power to replace them were they not responsive – was arguably the first calculated ‘grassroots movement’ in American History. This is nowhere more apparent than in the specific provision that the House of Representatives is the one body of government in which all bills for raising revenue must originate. Arbitrary, confiscatory taxes and tariffs had been a primary cause of the revolt against the previous government, the lack of authority to raise any revenue – and the absence of power to enforce any measure taken under that authority – was a failing of the present one. Fully aware that some source of income was necessary to maintain a government, the solution placing the responsibility for that income was, especially in retrospect, Machiavellian: The House of Representatives, the ‘voice of the people’ in government, was the sole originator of tariff bills. If too high, the fault lie with the citizenry through their elected representatives, if the government was unable to function due to lack of revenue, so, too, were they culpable. Once more, the logos is inescapable, the ethos readily apparent, the pathos muted, but underscoring all: To deserve liberty, a populace must be capable of reaching agreement and responsible enough to finance and support it in a manner equitable to all who partake. The exercise of rights demands the assumption of obligations and duties.
With provision made to entice the acceptance of the populace, the support of the individual states was necessary. Grandiose promises – again, implied and inferred, never specifically enumerated – of the sovereignty of the people might well garner their support, but the power to accept or refute this new form of compromise government still was in the hands of the states. Enlisting their support engendered creating a ‘democratic’ equivalent of the British House of Lords, the august-sounding Senate. Countering the populist House, the Senate gave equal voice to each state, regardless of size, wealth or population. Further separating the two, the Senate was to serve overlapping, rotating six-year terms, as opposed to the House’s two-year terms, expiring simultaneously. Elections for both, however, would synchronize with that for President (to be defined later in the document). Should the system function as intended, it could be fairly argued the framers had indeed fulfilled another promise from the preamble, and indeed formed “…a more perfect union…” Effectively, the voters would express their approval – or lack of it – of the policies of the administration and the Congress by either returning their representatives to office or replacing them, or countering those they couldn’t replace with those more attuned to the popular will.
While the theory was set forth as one of balance and controlled (or enforced) harmony, countering the interests of ‘the people’ with the weight of the states, it had the advantage of forestalling any precipitate action by either part: To accomplish anything, concurrence of a majority of both interests was necessary. Additionally (skipping ahead a few sections), no matter that both houses, regardless of their disparate interests and constituencies, could reach agreement on the need, form, and wording of a proposed law, it still required the approval of the chief executive. By requiring the accord of two separate branches for passage of a law, the drafters sought to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual, while requiring concurrence among diverse interests.

[TruBlu]

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

A representative of a state may not actually live there when elected? Am I reading that correctly? Why would that be in place? Wouldn't it make more sense if he/she actually lived where he/she is being elected from?

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

Because this "pro tempore" is a new phrase to me, I'd like to clarify quickly. The President pro tempore is in place so that instead of the entire chain of command to shift up from their positions, one is added in place of another, while the chain of command is still kept "the same." Correct?

I may have more soon, but that's what I've got for now. Many thanks.

[03_SHOOTER]

A representative of a state may not actually live there when elected? Am I reading that correctly? Why would that be in place? Wouldn't it make more sense if he/she actually lived where he/she is being elected from?

Sorry TruBlu, but you got caught by a classic Jeffersonian "double-negative". It says that nobody may be elected who has not been a citizen of their State. I realize that today that "double-negative" is considered to be a grammatical "no-no", but in Jeffersonian English, it is not only quite common, but is in fact usually grammatically more accurate.

Because this "pro tempore" is a new phrase to me, I'd like to clarify quickly. The President pro tempore is in place so that instead of the entire chain of command to shift up from their positions, one is added in place of another, while the chain of command is still kept "the same." Correct?

The "President Pro Tempore of the Senate" is the "temporary" President of the Senate while the Vice President, the Constitutional "President of the Senate" as authorized in Article 1 Section 3, is not physically present. "Pro Tempore" literally means "for the time being", so the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is the person acting on the Vice Presidents behalf when he is not there, and is usually held by a freshman Senator to help them "learn the ropes" of the Senate.

I may have more soon, but that's what I've got for now. Many thanks.[/QUOTE]

[TruBlu]

The "President Pro Tempore of the Senate" is the "temporary" President of the Senate while the Vice President, the Constitutional "President of the Senate" as authorized in Article 1 Section 3, is not physically present. "Pro Tempore" literally means "for the time being", so the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is the person acting on the Vice Presidents behalf when he is not there, and is usually held by a freshman Senator to help them "learn the ropes" of the Senate.

So the Pro Tempore would be in that position for "the time being" while the ex-VP now President replaces himself with his own VP?

[03_SHOOTER]

So the Pro Tempore would be in that position for "the time being" while the ex-VP now President replaces himself with his own VP?

Yes and no. The President Pro Temporte serves as President of the Senate ANY time the VP is not there, which is actually most of the time. While the VP is the President of the Senate, his duties generally do not allow him to be physically present in the Senate Chamber on a daily basis, so when he's not there, the President Pro Tempore serves in his stead. Think of it this way, the Executive Officer of a Unit becomes the Commander Pro Tempore any time the Commander isn't with the unit (on leave, or TDY for instance).

As far as the former VP serving as President and appointing a new VP, that falls under the 25th Amendment. To be clear though, the new VP nominee must be approved by Congress as happened when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, and Gerald Ford was appointed as VP by President Nixon, and then again after President Nixon resigned and Ford became President in 1974, and he appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP.

[HairyEyeball]

To shift the discussion to an(other) impending gratuitous violation of the Constitution, shall we address the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 6:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

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 (emphasis added).

and the appointment of the Hildebeast as Secretary of State?

There is no provision differentiating whether the individual voted aye or nay, or at all - the sole (dis)qualification is that she was a Senator at the time, and her term of office (January 2007-December 2012) - abandoned or not - will run concurrent with that of the incoming SecState.

We have allowed increasingly blatant abrogations, 'interpretations' and obfuscations of the Constitution, primarily (albeit not exclusively) by the democrat party since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Baraq Hussein has already demonstrated a deeper contempt for the document. Shall we let this, too, go unchallenged?

[JohnP]

Harry,

Just to make you feel even better:

Particularly in the early years of the republic, the post was regarded as a natural stepping-stone to the Presidency.

As the highest-ranking member of the cabinet, the Secretary of State is fourth in line to succeed the Presidency, coming after the Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

Now under recent administrations, the only appointee I've found, so far, that held an office prior to being named Secretary of State was Edmund Sixtus Muskie, Senator from the Great State of Maine and was appointed by President Carter. He did resign is position to take the post after Senate confimations.

I will do more research into this and report back the findings.

[Billyd]

While BO has indicated his INTENT to nominate the Beastly one to SecState, until the formal nomination is presented to the Senate, she is NOT the nominee (I know, semantics). Now, personal opinion being what it is, IMNSHO, for what it's worth, when BO FORMALLY nominates the Beastly one, she should not accept such nomination until she resigns from the Senate. But I am also of the opinion that Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain, Edwards and Biden, among others that hold a public office, should have resigned their seats the day they threw their hats into the ring. There is no way that they could effectively do the Country's business while campaigning. Of course, we all know that it isn't about doing the country's business as much as giving the country the business.

[PhilK]

But I am also of the opinion that Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain, Edwards and Biden, among others that hold a public office, should have resigned their seats the day they threw their hats into the ring. There is no way that they could effectively do the Country's business while campaigning. Of course, we all know that it isn't about doing the country's business as much as giving the country the business.

Interesting side note.

Zachary Taylor ran for President while still a Major General in the Army (and Western Department Commanding General), once he won he sent his resignation, but it was not to take effect until the day before he swore into office.

Between the time of his election and the time of his resignation, General Scott (Commanding General of the Army) took leave so there would be no conflict with the future President.

That was 1848-1849.

History can be such an entertaining study.

[HairyEyeball]

...the only appointee I've found, so far, that held an office prior to being named Secretary of State was Edmund Sixtus Muskie, Senator from the Great State of Maine and was appointed by President Carter. He did resign is position to take the post after Senate confimations.

And the political affiliation of both the referenced President and his appointee? No surprises there.

To paint it in as stark relief as possible, these people are our 'hired help'- they work for us. They 'signed a contract' when they took the jobs, and it is our responsibility to hold them to the terms of it. I am sick and tired of the servants dictating to their masters, of getting the government only the lowest common denominator deserves, of being victimized by an extortionist government maintained only by its redistribution of earned wealth to parasites. Either we the People speak up while we still have the voice and means, or we resign ourselves to the dictatorship of the inferior.

[03_SHOOTER]

I can only suggest that we all write letters to our respective Senators urging them to block this nomination on the grounds clearly laid out in Article 1 Section 6, however, with Senator Joe Biden (D) Delaware (and prospective VP elect) still being the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and showing no indication of leaving that post until the last possible moment before he himself is sworn in as VP, and Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, and others also serving on the Committee, the odds of their hearing our pleas are somewhere between "none" and "ROTFLMFAO".

The fact of the matter is that "the Messiah" and all of his sycophants have made absolutely no secret of the fact that they collectively hold the Constitution in complete contempt, and not only have no intention to "...protect and defend..." it, they in fact intend to utilize it to wipe fecal matter from their fourth points of contact, as often as possible, and dare anyone to call them on it.

[JohnP]

For Harry,

After looking up every person and the dates served who has ever served as Secretary of State of the United States, I can give you these conclusions:

No person ever serving as the primary for the Secretary of State of the United States has ever held another position.

There is one exception. James Monroe held the postition for 1 month as he was serving as Secretary of War during the War of 1812.

NB - I stated as primary, there are several time through out US history that temporary vacancies were held from 3 days to 2 months by members of other judicial and legislative offices. These, again, were only held until a primary was found and confirmed.

This should allow us to rest at night.

[HairyEyeball]

But how many of them were drawn from the ranks of a Congress which had voted the position they were appointed to a raise?

Breaking faith with those who elected you to a specific office - for whatever reason - is not the question, nor is the 'wearing of two hats' (one elected, one appointed). The Hildebeast was a 'serving' Senator at the time the office of Secretary of State was voted a raise. The wording of the Constitution clearly prohibits her - or any other Senator or Representative serving during that session - from appointment to the position until the expiration of her term of office.

This goes beyond perverting - er, 'interpreting' - the Constitution to serve political ends, this is a clear violation of both its letter and spirit, 'with malice aforethought'. The worst part, however, is not that it is being done, nor even who is doing it, but that there is no outcry from either the public or the tenured professors of 'Constitutional Law' to whom we have entrusted the 'education' of the next generation of our leaders.

[HairyEyeball]

Whether she resigns or not, Billy, she is Constitutionally prohibited from the position until the Senate term she was elected to expires, whether she 'accepts' or not. And before the sea lawyers raise the question, yes, the document does read 'civil office' rather than, say, 'appointed' or 'cabinet' office, but in the context of the Constitution, even with no familiarity with contemporary usage, the clear intent is 'as opposed to military office'.

As to the long list of elected 'representatives' who lacked the personal and professional integrity to resign their offices in pursuit of higher ones - and those you cited are but the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg' - what more can be said of the sheeple who returned them to those offices they displayed such contempt for? How often need it be said that in point of fact, they are our 'hired help', and it is incumbent on us to hold them to 'the terms of their contract'. Were we to apply the same rules to them that we apply to our 'commercial' employees, and dock their pay or fire them based on attendance, might we not temp a better class of 'representative'; might we not 'send a message' of higher expectation in all areas?

[Billyd]

Absolutely. But realistically, do you ever expect that to happen? I don't. The only thing that We the People can do is contact our employees and let them know that we are displeased. I have and have indicated that if they voted contrary to the Constitution, that I would make it my life's work to see them voted out when they come up for reelection. They voted the wrong way and I have work to do.

[03_SHOOTER]

For Harry,

After looking up every person and the dates served who has ever served as Secretary of State of the United States, I can give you these conclusions:

No person ever serving as the primary for the Secretary of State of the United States has ever held another position.

There is one exception. James Monroe held the postition for 1 month as he was serving as Secretary of War during the War of 1812.

NB - I stated as primary, there are several time through out US history that temporary vacancies were held from 3 days to 2 months by members of other judicial and legislative offices. These, again, were only held until a primary was found and confirmed.

This should allow us to rest at night.

Hey Bro, not to 'cut you off at the knees', but unless I've misinterpreted something here I believe you may have missed a few, the main one being Philander C. Knox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philander_Chase_Knox), who was appointed by William Howard Taft, and whose appointment culminated in the first use of what would become known as the"Saxby Fix" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix). Knox had been appointed to complete the term of Matthew S. Quay, and was elected in his own right as a Senator from Pennsylvania, but was appointed as Sec State before his term was complete. In order to "fix" the problem created by the emoluments of office, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary simply proposed, and the entire Senate agreed, to reduce the salary of Sec State to where it had been, thereby, they thought "fixing" the problem. While it is true that the salary issue had been addressed, what they failed to account for is 1) nothing the Senate alone does can be considered "law" unless the House also approves it, and the President signs it into law, and 2) it wouldn't matter if both the Senate and the House had approved it and the President had signed it, unless a Constitutional Amendment is ratified, it still doesn't change the fact that Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 clearly prohibits a sitting Congressman or Senator from being appointed (at all, regardless of whether he accepts it or not) to an Office which has been created, or the emoluments increased during the time they were a Congressman or Senator. It does not say "unless the emoluments are reduced", or give any dispensation at all, it simply says that they may not be appointed (at all) if the emoluments have been increased.

President Nixon appointed William B. Saxby using the "Saxby fix".

Jimmy Carter appointed Edmund Muskie using the "Saxby fix".

Bill Clinton appointed Lloyd Bentson Sec Treasury following the '92 election using the "Saxby fix".

My all time favorite though is John Marshall........... yes, THAT John Marshall, who after having been elected as a Representative from the State of Virginia in the 1798 election, took an appointment as Sec State under President John Adams after Adams fired Timothy Pickering, while only 15 months into his term of office, thereby directly violating the very clear meaning of Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2, as the transcripts of the Debates in the Federal Convention make it perfectly clear that the original design of the framers was to prevent any sitting Congressman or Senator from accepting any appointment to any Office during the term he was elected to serve. The thing that I find so interesting about this man is that he served as a member of the Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution, expressing an unusually keen interest in Article III, and after accepting the position of Sec State, it was he who failed to deliver the instrument of appointment to William Marbury which led directly to the landmark case of Marbury v Madison, in which he ruled, as the newly appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that he had suddenly discovered a before never seen provision by which the Supreme Court had the "right of Judicial Review", despite the fact that judicial review had specifically been discussed and discarded in the Federal Convention in favor of Presidential veto and 2/3 majority over ride.

Other sitting Congresscritters who have resigned their elected offices in order to take an appointment as Sec State include the following, although I have not been able to ascertain if any of the emoluments of office had been increased immediately prior to their taking it.

Cordell Hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull) was elected Senator from Tennessee in the 1930 "mid-term" election, but when FDR won the Presidency in 1932, he tapped Hull to be his Sec State when he chose not to retain Henry Stimson.

Then there's John M. Clayton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Middleton_Clayton), who after winning a seat in the Senate from Delaware in the 1844 election, left his seat to join the administration of Zachary Taylor who was elected President in the 1848 election. He served in the Taylor administration until President Taylors death in 1850, when he resigned to make room for Daniel Webster under the new Fillmore administration.

James G. Blain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gillespie_Blaine) of Maine, was appointed to the Senate to complete the term of Lot M. Morrill who had resigned his post to take an appointment as Secretary of the Treasury under Ulysses S. Grant. He then won the 1880 election, but resigned prior to taking his seat in order to serve as Sec State under James A. Garfield. When Garfield was assassinated in Sept. of 1881 President Chester Arthur kept him on until December when Blain he fell ill with what would become a fatal kidney infection.

[03_SHOOTER]

HRC, STATE -- AND THE CONSTITUTION (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/25/1688640.aspx)

From NBC’s Pete Williams

If President-elect Barack Obama nominates Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, many legal scholars believe it would be the former law professor's first violation of the Constitution as president.

Why? Because the Constitution forbids the appointment of members of Congress to administration jobs if the salary of the job they'd take was raised while they were in Congress. (Article I, Section 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office ... the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." Emoluments meaning salaries and benefits.)

Past presidents have confronted this problem repeatedly -- Taft in nominating Sen. Philander Knox to be secretary of state, Nixon in nominating Sen. William Saxbe to be attorney general, Carter in nominating Sen. Ed Muskie to be secretary of state, and Clinton in nominating Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to be treasury secretary, to name some notable examples.

The usual workaround is for Congress to lower the salary of the job back to what it was so that the nominee can take it without receiving the benefit of the pay increase that was approved while the nominee was in Congress. This maneuver, which has come to be known as "the Saxbe fix," addresses the clear intent of the Constitution, to prevent self-dealing.

But many legal scholars believe it does not cure the Constitutional problem, because the language of Article I is so clearly an absolute prohibition: No senator or representative, period.

"The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose,” said Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a Constitutional law expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. “And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule.”

"A 'fix' can rescind the salary,” he added, “but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.”

Having said all this, so what? If Obama goes ahead and nominates Clinton, it's doubtful the courts would entertain a lawsuit from an outraged citizen. Such generalized taxpayer lawsuits are disfavored by the federal courts.

A more difficult case might come if a Secretary of State Clinton issued an order that put a specific citizen at a disadvantage. That might give rise to a lawsuit that could get some traction.

Even then, though, some legal scholars believe it would be a hard case to make. Former Clinton Justice Department solicitor general Walter Dellinger says there's reason to think that the official acts of someone in a federal office are valid, even if the person's qualifications for the office are in doubt.

It would appear that Walter Dellinger, and the rest of the Judiciary for that matter, really don't give a DAMN what the Constitution says, since they have "Judicial Review" and since they determine who has "standing" or not. The fact is that THEY rule the country, and all of us "peons" can just go pound a HUGE pile of sand right up our fourth points of contact if we don't like it.

[HairyEyeball]

It's not a question of 'expecting' anything to 'happen' - it's one of motivating enough concerned citizens to take action to make it happen. I've already lit a fire under a few, and the local 'news'rag has received a fairly strongly worded (but polite) Op-Ed. As you and many of the people here are aware, the government is the servant of the people, not the master (despite their delusions to the contrary), but must be reminded of the fact regularly and sometimes forcefully.

The government could not have seized - or bought - the power it has without the cooperation and approval - tacit or active - of 'we the People', and unless and until enough of us pick a point to say stop and begin taking it back the way it was taken from us, one small piece at a time through legislation...we might just as well dig a hole, crawl in, and pull the top back over us.

This is another opportunity for a 'starting point', to draw that 'line in the sand', before the only option left is armed insurrection.

[03_SHOOTER]

Quick question, wouldn't Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 apply to Rahm Emanuel just as it does to the Hildabeast?

[HairyEyeball]

Probably not, 'White House Chief of Staff' is not a 'civil office' as understood in context, rather it falls under the same category as White House maids and stewards...not that I'd trust him to make my bed, let alone handle my food.

[JohnP]

The Saxbe fix or simply a "rollback" is a solution to a restriction by the Ineligibility Clause contained in Article One of the United States Constitution on sitting members of the United States Congress being appointed to jobs created for them or for which the salary was increased while they were in office. Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:

“ 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 clause above prohibits self-dealing legislation and is intended to protect the "separation of power" of various branches of government. The Saxbe fix attends to complications related to the self-dealing portion of the ineligibility clause. Historically, the solution has been to reduce salaries of Cabinet positions to the level they were before the offending salary increases. Although the method originated in 1909 during the Taft Administration, it is named after Senator William B. Saxbe who successfully was appointed to be United States Attorney General in 1973 after Congress followed the advice of then acting Attorney General Robert Bork to "fix" the violation of the clause by reducing the Attorney General salary from $60,000 to the previous $35,000 level.[1] The fix subsequently has become relevant as a successful solution for Presidential appointments to the United States Cabinet of sitting members of the United States Congress but not for appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

William Taft used the Saxbe fix to appoint Philander C. Knox as Secretary of State.

Richard Nixon used the Saxbe fix to appoint William B. Saxbe as Attorney General.

Jimmy Carter used the Saxbe fix to appoint Edmund Muskie as Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton used the Saxbe fix to appoint Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury Secretary with the help of George H. W. Bush.

President-elect Barack Obama may need the Saxbe fix to appoint Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State.

'03 I stand corrected.

Taft - Rebulican
Nixon - Republican
Carter - Democrat
Clinton - Democrat *NB-Assisted by George H a republican
Obama - Democrat

[HairyEyeball]

No, the 'Saxbe Fix' is not a 'solution' or a 'work-around'. It may have set a precedent, but that precedent is still illegal.

Section 6 does not say "may not serve at the higher rate of pay", it clearly and distinctly says:''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 nomination is illegal and unconstitutional, as were the five which preceeded it, and must be challenged. If any judge or Justice upholds it, he will have violated his oath of office and must be removed under the provisions of Article III, Section 1.

As to the question of 'precedent', history is replete with examples of higher courts reversing decisions based on years of 'precedent', and the Supremes reversing themselves despite years of 'precedent'. Either the Constitution is valid or it is not, either the words of the Constitution have clear and distinct meanings or they do not. If not, then the document is invalid on its face, and 'we the People' have even less obligation to be bound by it than those who govern under their own fraudulent interpretation of it. Either we are a nation of law, or we are a feifdom dominated by the richest, the only difference between the XXI Century and the Middle Ages being that the almighty dollar has replaced the sword.

We, as the 'owners' of the government, must either insist that it follows its charter or abolish it and establish one that will...and yes, we all know the likelihood of that.

[03_SHOOTER]

No, the 'Saxbe Fix' is not a 'solution' or a 'work-around'. It may have set a precedent, but that precedent is still illegal.

Section 6 does not say "may not serve at the higher rate of pay", it clearly and distinctly says:''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 nomination is illegal and unconstitutional, as were the five which preceeded it, and must be challenged. If any judge or Justice upholds it, he will have violated his oath of office and must be removed under the provisions of Article III, Section 1.

While I could be wrong, and if I am I'm sure that JohnP will have no trouble telling me about it (after all, he hasn't since 1982!!), but I believe that he was merely addressing the issue from the aspect of "how it is" without assigning any judgement on it's correctness, and no way attempting to "justify" it.

[JohnP]

No, the 'Saxbe Fix' is not a 'solution' or a 'work-around'. It may have set a precedent, but that precedent is still illegal.

Section 6 does not say "may not serve at the higher rate of pay", it clearly and distinctly says:''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 nomination is illegal and unconstitutional, as were the five which preceeded it, and must be challenged. If any judge or Justice upholds it, he will have violated his oath of office and must be removed under the provisions of Article III, Section 1.

As to the question of 'precedent', history is replete with examples of higher courts reversing decisions based on years of 'precedent', and the Supremes reversing themselves despite years of 'precedent'. Either the Constitution is valid or it is not, either the words of the Constitution have clear and distinct meanings or they do not. If not, then the document is invalid on its face, and 'we the People' have even less obligation to be bound by it than those who govern under their own fraudulent interpretation of it. Either we are a nation of law, or we are a feifdom dominated by the richest, the only difference between the XXI Century and the Middle Ages being that the almighty dollar has replaced the sword.

We, as the 'owners' of the government, must either insist that it follows its charter or abolish it and establish one that will...and yes, we all know the likelihood of that.

I'm neither a lawyer nor do I play one in a movie. What '03 and I have pointed out was the history of this ruling. I will agree with you that it is not following the Constitution on the United States and that those who violate it should be brought before the people to answer why.

The question is how?

When I asked '03 the same question in person, I got the answer I wanted to hear. If you want the answer, ask him.

The way to fix this problem is from the inside. We can be the angry masses pressed against the wall grumbling about the lack of food and the contempt in which our rulers treat us, or we can get personally involved with the system.

This is the greatest thing about our society. I ask Harry and '03 to clarify this question. What college degree do you need to be a congressman, senator, or even President of the United States? Where in the constitution does it say, because you are of low birth you can't do anything about the rules?

This discussion will continue.

[03_SHOOTER]

I'm neither a lawyer nor do I play one in a movie. What '03 and I have pointed out was the history of this ruling. I will agree with you that it is not following the Constitution on the United States and that those who violate it should be brought before the people to answer why.

The question is how?

When I asked '03 the same question in person, I got the answer I wanted to hear. If you want the answer, ask him.

The way to fix this problem is from the inside. We can be the angry masses pressed against the wall grumbling about the lack of food and the contempt in which our rulers treat us, or we can get personally involved with the system.

This is the greatest thing about our society. I ask Harry and '03 to clarify this question. What college degree do you need to be a congressman, senator, or even President of the United States? Where in the constitution does it say, because you are of low birth you can't do anything about the rules?

This discussion will continue.

First of all, OOPS!! :o Sorry Bro, I inadvertently hit the "Edit" button (it's only available to Mods and Admin) instead of the "Reply" button. I was not attempting to edit your post.

H.E. is already aware of the method we discussed, and in fact was engaged in that process very recently.

As to your question, no such provisions exist in the Constitution, however, the reality of the situation is that lacking such "government approved documentation" from an "approved" Instutooshun of Hyur Ejukashun makes it quite difficult, if not impossible, depending on your constituency.

As to other options, there is a growing percentage of the population that has come to the conclusion that the government is so badly broken that even if the entire Congress were to be replaced with "new blood", would they be able to enact the changes necessary to make the United States the nation the Founders collectively (albeit by compromise) envisioned. One of the first problems that they would encounter is the overwhelming amount of "laws", whether they be Constitutional or not, and the sheer number of lawyers who would be more than happy to keep any changes enacted by the "new blood" and signed into Law by the President tied up in court for decades. Then there is the Supreme Court, who, after seizing for themselves a blatantly un-Constitutional "right" (judicial review) in Marbury v Madison, have now determined which among We The People has "standing" to even bring suit against the government, in complete contradiction of the First Amendment Right to petition our government for redress of grievance!

Our Congress intentionally seeks to subvert the Constitution any time it is "expedient" to do so (such as the unconstitutional appointment of sitting Congresscritters to higher political office), and when We The People object, we are told "there is precedent", regardless of whether or not the "precedent" is Constitutional, but are for all intents and purposes untouchable until the next election since it is that same said Congress who determines if they will or will not impeach or expel one of their own! Even when the next election does roll around, as long as those Congresscritters have distributed enough "bread and circuses" to their constituents, their re-elections are all but assured. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. :sleepy:

We also have a long history of Presidents who have no compunction to do the same, and hide behind "Executive privilege" who are only impeached when their sins are so egregious that "sweeping it under the rug" proves to be impossible, and even when they are forced from office, their futures are secured by the emoluments secured for them by their sycophants and co-conspirators in the Congress.

I have said it before, and I have no problem saying it again, Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." In that spirit, as I said in a previous post that garnered the extreme ire of some of the membership, it would not cause me any discomfort whatever to see a couple of million members of the "unorganized militia" show up in Washington DC, armed to the teeth, and dismiss, by force if necessary, every member of the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary branches and START OVER AGAIN with only those members whose ONLY fealty is to the letter and spirit of the Constitution! The very first act of our new government should be to enact a law that requires that if ANY member of the new government engage in the activities that caused the replacement of their predecessors, then they should be immediately fired, by being strapped across the muzzle of an 8lb CANNON!

[JohnP]

[/I][/B]

H.E. is already aware of the method we discussed, and in fact was engaged in that process very recently.


I have said it before, and I have no problem saying it again, Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said: In that spirit, as I said in a previous post that garnered the extreme ire of some of the membership, it would not cause me any discomfort whatever to see a couple of million members of the "unorganized militia" show up in Washington DC, armed to the teeth, and dismiss, by force if necessary, every member of the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary branches and START OVER AGAIN with only those members whose ONLY fealty is to the letter and spirit of the Constitution! The very first act of our new government should be to enact a law that requires that if ANY member of the new government engage in the activities that caused the replacement of their predecessors, then they should be immediately fired, by being strapped across the muzzle of an 8lb CANNON!:flag:

"O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!" - Hamlet (I, v, 106)

As for you idea about an unorganized militia, it was attempted to a degree:

Bonus Army

The self-named Bonus Expeditionary Force was an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers — 17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups, who protested in Washington, D.C., in spring and summer of 1932. Called the Bonus March by the news media, the Bonus Marchers were more popularly known as the Bonus Army. The war veterans sought immediate, cash payment of Service Certificates granted them eight years earlier via the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924. Each Service Certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment, plus compound interest. The problem was that the certificates (like bonds), matured twenty years from the date of original issuance, thus, under extant law, the Service Certificates were un-redeemable until 1945.

The reaction:

One of MacArthur's most controversial acts came in 1932, when President Hoover ordered him to disperse the "Bonus Army" of veterans who had converged on the capital in protest of government policy. MacArthur was criticized for using excessive force to disperse the protesters. According to MacArthur, the demonstration had been taken over by communists and pacifists with, he claimed, only "one man in 10 being veterans." The Veteran's Administration files quoted by David Halberstam in "The Coldest Winter", state that 93% of the Bonus Army were veterans, of whom 67% had served overseas during the World War. Similarly, PBS' The American Experience has further supported this position by showing that the Bonus Army was composed overwhelmingly of First World War veterans whose pacifist politics were typical of the era - pacifism was not an uncommon belief among the general public of the 1930s. It has also been reported that MacArthur never received the orders telling him not to stop the marchers and that the orders were hidden from him by other officers who wanted the Army troops to storm the Bonus Army camps.:SWAT:

This fiasco makes for interesting reading....

You make valid points and rational points. As in guerrilla warfare, all ground can't be taken and held in one night. You must piecemeal the enemy; let him think you are weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak. (It's scary to quote Mao when discussing US politics.):lookaround:

To HE, I'm proud of your 1st attempt and look forward to the day.:marine:

[HairyEyeball]

Not much I can add to 03's observations (not that I won't anyway) - I'm sure you own at least one copy of the Constitution, and the only requirements for any office in any branch are clear - albeit 'minimum' in practice (and, depending on the circumstances of Baraq Hussein's birth, not necessarily that). One point often overlooked is the omission of any legal training required for a seat on the Court, the Founding Fathers likely understanding the 'common citizen' to be possessed of greater integrity and 'common sense' than 99.873% of degreed lawyers (who obviously give the rest a bad name).

As to the 'solution', no, being elected to office is not the first step. The first step is to become politically active - become a precinct committeeman, make your voice heard and your (justified) opinions respected in your district, get active in your county and state party. You may run for office - whether local dog catcher or President, or anything between - or find and encourage qualified, respected individuals to do so...and once you have candidates, work your butt off for them: Post signs, make phone calls, walk the precincts talking to the voters. Find out what's important to them, research the problems and propose solutions. Be able to answer their questions - and challenges - but 'connect' with them, show them you're not just another empty suit they only know as a name on a ballot.

Hell yes, it takes money - but money wisely spent. In the election just past, the two incumbents I ran against spent over $30,000 (of public money) each, and took just over 60% of votes cast. The 'green' candidate spent close to $20,000 (also public funds), and pulled approximately 6%. My total expenses for the campaign were under $1000, all of which came out of my pocket or the pockets of those who believed in me, and I took just under 20% of ballots cast...and that without the support of the national, state or county party.

Whether you (or your candidate) win or not, maintain your integrity and accessibility. Before and after the election, stand for something, and preach the same ethic at every community event and organization you get invited to or attend on your own. If you do get elected, be able to explain why you voted against an unconstitutional bill, even if the overwhelming majority of your constituents would have profited from it (whether it passes or not). I've found Barry Goldwater's observation on that inestimable:


“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

[HairyEyeball]

Thanks, John - and for what it's worth, the 2010 campaign began on the morning of Wednesday, 05 November.

Two points: First, the Bonus Marchers were unarmed, they were exercising the alleged "...right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - no more, no less.

Second, while it is (somewhat) common knowledge that the troops 'dispersing' the Bonus Marchers (and putting their 'Hooverville' to the torch) were commanded by Bugout Doug, it is less known that the cavalry contingent was commanded by none other than Major George S. Patton, while the infantry was under the command of Major David Dwight (also known as Dwight David) Eisenhower. The incident doesn't appear to have damaged their military careers.

[03_SHOOTER]

Anyway, to get back on topic, it would appear that a lawsuit may not be that far off re: the Hildabeast.

Lawsuit To Stop Clinton Appointment? (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/03/lawsuit-to-stop-clinton-appointment/)
By Caleb Howe
Dec 3rd 2008 10:35AM
Filed Under:eHillary Clinton, Senate, Democrats, Breaking News

The Washington Times reported this morning that Judicial Watch, a conservative non-partisan watchdog group, is filing suit over Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State Wednesday. I contacted Judicial Watch this morning to confirm the information, and they denied that there is a lawsuit at this time. The group filed a complaint and are pressing the issue in the media. They cite the "emoluments clause" of the Constitution, also known as the "ineligibility clause", which prohibits Clinton from serving in the post. Senate Democrats are working on a fix which will allow the appointment to go through; the so-called "Saxbe fix," named for Nixon's Attorney General William Saxbe. Interestingly, President Bill Clinton used the same fix to appoint his Treasury Secretary, Lloyd Bentsen.

The issue arises as a result of the fact that the Secretary of State salary was increased during Senator Clinton's term in office, and the the clause states: "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."

Harry Reid is confident that a Saxbe fix, which is basically legislation to reduce the pay to pre-increase levels, will go through with little trouble. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that the ineligibility issue has "been dealt with each and every time," it has come up and that they are "confident it can be dealt with this time."

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton was likewise confident in a fix. "This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset," said spokesman Philippe Reines. "This issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we're confident it will be here too." Reines also referenced "frivolous lawsuits" brought by a "fringe groups," although I cannot find any actual pending legal action.

In fact, however, it has not been dealt with every single time, and there are some who object to the Saxbe fix, including ten Democratic Senators during the Nixon years, one of whom still serves in office.

When Richard Nixon appointed the eponymous Saxbe, 10 Democrat Senators objected on Constitutional grounds. Robert Byrd of West Virginia stated at the time that "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle."

Judicial Watch argues that there is no getting around the clause, as whether the pay is reduced or not, the fact that it was increased is a plain prohibition to Clinton's appointment. During the Reagan administration, the Saxbe fix was deemed unconstitutional in the case of the appointment of Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court. At the time of Clinton's use of the Saxbe fix, law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote an article for the Standford Law Review titled "Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional" that provides not only argument against a Saxbe fix but discussion of who might have standing to challenge it.

There is little disagreement over whether the clause prohibits Clinton's appointment. Jesse Choper, professor of public law at UC Berkeley said that "there's not much question they [Judicial Watch] have accurately stated the language of the Constitution, but the question is what do you do about it." That, of course, is precisely the question.