Constitution Bars Hillary from Secretary of State

It looks like New York may be stuck with Senator Clinton after all. Some eagle-eyed constitutional scholars have pointed out the obstacle presented by Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. 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.

“Emoluments” is 18th-century talk for salary. And the salary for all cabinet positions did go up in 2008, i.e., “during the Time for which [s]he was elected.” The real question, of course, is whether “constitutional law professor” Barack Obama (who should presumably be familiar with the fine print of the Constitution) will have the integrity to back down from nominating her. Assuming the answer is no, will any of Hillary’s fellow Senators — even the Republicans — have the balls to raise the issue during the confirmation process? Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing the answer is another no.

What, you expect our elected officials to uphold and defend the Constitution or something?

8 comments for “Constitution Bars Hillary from Secretary of State

  1. January 8, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Nah, there is a already a “workaround” for Article I, Section 6, Clause 2:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

  2. Alton Yee
    December 18, 2008 at 3:15 am

    Max Kessler,

    You said: “Give me a break. McCain was born on a US military base, which is US soil. Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Full stop.”

    Yes, let’s come to a full stop.

    Max, what evidence do you have that Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii? I hope it wasn’t from that “Certification of Live Birth” shown at:
    http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    If so, do you see the name of the hospital in Hawaii that Obama was born at? I don’t see it. I do, however, see the name of the hospital I was born at on MY birth certificate. And it’s a sure bet that you’ll also see one on your birth certificate. Why is which hospital you and I were born at so important? Because it’s proof that you and I were born on American soil (I presume you were born in America) and thus proves we are constitutionally eligible to hold office of president. If Obama possesses such a birth certificate, it will also show he was born on American soil and tjus prove that he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president. So why don’t Obama show such a birth certificate thus proving that he was born on American soil and end all these accusations and speculations? WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER THAN DOING THIS? Well, maybe you think it’s because he doesn’t have such a birth certificate?

    Still, you’re skeptical of “paper birth certificates” because they “are what we have (lest we accept “Real ID” and permanent DNA databases), which are not, nor will they ever be, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do belong to the person who claims them and that said person was in fact born in the US.”

    Are American birth certificates foolproof evidence that a person was born in the U.S.? Probably not, but don’t we have agencies such as New York City’s Department of Vital Records that certify birth certificates to be reasonably, if not absolutely, true about a person’s birthplace?

    Returning to Obama’s birth certificate or lack of, the “Certification of Live Birth” he foisted on us is not even “reasonably true” about his birthplace on American soil, since it doesn’t show which hospital he was born in. Besides, Hawaiian law in 1961 (and even now) allowed anyone to claim a Hawaiian birth through a “Certification of Live Birth,” even if they were born outside of Hawaii, which includes Kenya. (BTW, Max, you may be surprised to know that Hawaii also issues bona fide birth certificates, complete with the names of Hawaiian hospitals where births occurred. Againg, why won’t Obama show such a document?)

    Speaking of Kenya, and because of Obama’s obstinate refusal to produce a bona fide Hawaiian birth certificate, one way to settle this matter about Obama’s birthplace, which, as far as I know, have not been explored, is to look through the personal effects of Obama’s deceased mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. What’s needed to be found is Stanley Ann’s old passport from the period covering 1961. (You do keep your old, expired passports don’t you?). This passport would show, “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” whether Stanley Ann was on Kenyan or American soil during August 4, 1961. I think this is an excellent avenue to explore, don’t you agree Max? (I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if Obama had already thought of this avenue and had arranged for this passport to disappear.)

    Here’s a thought to chew on, Max: What if Stanley Ann’s passport was found and it proves she was in Kenya on August 4, 1961? Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” showed the “Date Filed by Registrar” as August 8, 1961, four days after Obama’s birthday. Obama’s birth was announced in a Honolulu newspaper at around the same time. How could Stanley Ann return to Honolulu four days after she gave birth to Obama?

    I don’t think it was possible for her to do this, because:

    1) While I’m uncertain about such matters, I doubt that Stanley Ann could be up and about a couple of days after giving birth.

    2) Did she and Barack, Sr. (assuming he traveled with her) take a direct, non-stop flight from Nairobi to Honolulu? Hardly. They probably had to hopscotch on multiple flights, possibly stopping overnight at some airports between flights. This fact and when you realize that jet travel was not widespread or affordable in 1961, probably meant Obama’s parents had to travel for several days before they arrived in Honolulu.

    3) Why was Stanley Ann in such a darned hurry to return to Honolulu, anyway?

    So if Obama was indeed born in Kenya (as will be proven eventually in the Supreme Court), it was unlikely, if not impossible, for Obama’s parents to be in Honolulu four days after he was born. This means that someone else, probably Stanley Ann’s parents, applied for a “Certification of Live Birth” to register Obama’s birth and placed the newspaper announcement of Obama’s birth.

    Anyhow, Max, these are more speculations concerning Obama’s birthplace and citizenship–speculations that Obama could easily dispel by merely producing a birth certificate, similar to the ones you and I have, that proves he was born on American soil. Max, in 25 words or less, can you tell me why he won’t do this? I could tell you in five: Because he doesn’t have one!

    Last, I remind you again that this issue concerning Obama’s citizenship is NOT about Obama, but about the U. S. Constitution. And again, I do not care what he tells Oprah.

    FULL STOP.

  3. December 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    “It is not like we didn’t have two guys who weren’t even native born citizens running for president this year.”

    Give me a break. McCain was born on a US military base, which is US soil. Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Full stop.

    People keep coming up with absurd theories about his birth certificate being fake, but I challenge anybody to show me an authentic birth certificate for James Buchanan or Woodrow Wilson. Paper birth certificates are what we have (lest we accept “Real ID” and permanent DNA databases), which are not, nor will they ever be, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do belong to the person who claims them and that said person was in fact born in the US.

    I understand not wanting Obama or McCain to be president (I certainly don’t), but grabbing at straws in hopes of finding something that may hint at ineligibility is not the answer. Besides, until the Presidential Electors actually cast their votes there is no President-Elect. Should Obama be ruled ineligible, we will likely be stuck with President Billary again.

    Obama has provided a birth certificate. If somebody wants to discredit it, the burden of proof should be on them, not him. (Can anybody here prove they were born in the US? What evidence will you use, a paper birth certificate?)

  4. John
    December 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    The language of this section is CLEAR. It says “he.” It has not applicability to female members of congress. Unless of course you’re arguing that we should ignore the plain language and enforce the spirit of the law.

  5. Alton Yee
    December 7, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Do we have the makings of a second Obamian constitutional crisis? The first being the controversy over his citizenship, the gist of which is that since Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the president to be a “natural born citizen, and since it’s alleged that Obama was born in Kenya, then he cannot be the President, let along run for the office.

    Obama could have easily dispelled this controversy by providing a birth certificate that clearly shows he was born on American soil, but, instead, he has paid millions of dollars for lawyers to quash lawsuits challenging his citizenship. He has also posted a document on his web site that purports to be his birth certificate that shows he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. But this document was proven to be a forgery, and worse, it does not prove he was born on American soil, since it doesn’t say which hospital in Honolulu he was born in. (Doesn’t your legitimate American birth certificate show which hospital you were born in?)

    To see this document, go here, http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
    To read more about this controversy, go here: http://www.obamabirthcertificatefacts.com

    Still, the Supreme Court Justices held a conference Friday, December 5 to decide which cases they will hear. Among those cases is one that challenges Obama’s name on the 2008 ballot because of questions over his citizenship. If four out of the nine justices agree to hear this case, then formal hearings will be scheduled. But we won’t know until tomorrow, December 8. Stay tuned

    It cannot be overstated how serious this controversy is concerning Obama’s citizenship, or lack of (a.k.a., “Obamagate”). And this is a controversy with such unprecedented consequences, yet somehow the mainstream media has completely blacked it out. (I didn’t see any mention of this controversy in “Serf City,” does this mean “Serf City” has gone mainstream?) Indeed there are many who think this controversy is without merit, considering it “a vast white, er, right wing conspiracy.” They don’t even believe that Obama could play such a massive hoax on the American people. For these people, I remind them of what happened on this very day, December 7, sixty-eight years ago. I am, of course, referring to Pearl Harbor, “the Mother of All Conspiracies,” (see: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html). And don’t even think of getting me started on 9/11.

    Still, should the Supreme Court somehow decide not to hear this case, the issue will not go away! Indeed, should this happen, it’s speculated (predicted?) Obama will be assassinated before his inaugural. It’s further speculated that his assassin will not be a lone, crazed killer (think L.H.O.), or a KKK or Aryan Nation member, but a member of his inner circle such as a Secret Service employee or, more likely, Obama will be assassinated in a quasi-legal putsch planned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (think “Seven Days in May” and this time there will be no Kirk Douglas character to save Obama).

    Should this chain of events happen, I think it will be good for restoring the Constitution. After all, does anyone, including the most “Obamagastic” supporter, really think that Obama is above the Constitution, which is the “Law of the Land”?

    Speaking of being “above the Constitution,” what would happen if the Supreme Court finds Obama unqualified to hold office as president and Obama refuses to step down? A chilling thought, yes? But should he recover from his megalomania and do step down, would Biden become President? Would McCain become President? Or, as a pundit predicts, will a new presidential election be scheduled in April and Bush remains in office until June?

    To see how events play out, stay tuned to your RSS feeds. Meanwhile, it seems “Obamagate” has the makings of an intriguing movie. (Calling Oliver Stone!) But whether a movie will be made, we must all know that this issue concerning Obama’s citizenship is NOT about Obama, but about the U. S. Constitution. And I don’t care what Obama tells Oprah!

  6. Matt M
    December 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Bella, sorry but you are wrong, the constitution also says that you cannot hold a civil office and be a senator or representitive at the same time.

    This clearly states that they cannot be APPOINTED not just serve at the same time, but even be appointed to the office if they had a successful vote to raise the pay of that office while they were in office.

    They either have to rescind the pay raise or Hillary is ineligible.

    By the way I think this also came up under Nixon one time.

  7. December 3, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    This item does not bar her from becoming Secretary of State. All it means is that she has to resign from being a Senator in order to take up her new post. She can’t be a senator and Secretary of State at the same time. Similarly, Barack Obama has to resign from being a senator for Illinois in order for him to take up the presidency.

  8. November 26, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Ahhhhh! Who pays attention to that old thing anyway? It is not like we didn’t have two guys who weren’t even native born citizens running for president this year. I say, Arnold, time to leave California and run for Prez in ’12. Who can stop you? Nobody has standing in the courts. Nobody will be able to stop Hillary.

    So apologize for saddling the nation that carpetbagger Hillary, while Arizona will apologize for sticking the nation with our carpetbagger for Homeland Führer.

Comments are closed.