Obama and Congress ‘diss’ the US Constitution
The first public law in the list of legislative accomplishments by the 111th Congress is troubling.
S.J.RES.3
Title: A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-1 [GPO: Text, PDF]
The excerpt and link below will give you a taste of what is being presented here.
We’ll be honest: As a third-year in law school, we signed up for that seminar on the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause not because we think it’d ever come in handy, but because it would leave us more time to play video games and watch “Saved by the Bell” reruns. But now, wow, how thankful we are. Here’s why: a handful of Con Law scholars seem to feel that the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Sec. 6 disqualifies Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State, an appointment that arrived a moment ago. (Click here for part of the discussion, courtesy of the Volokh Conspiracy.) The Emoluments Clause states:
from the Congressional Record….
Mr. TOWNS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
S.J. Res. 3 is a measure needed to ensure Senator Salazar of Colorado will be able to serve our country as the Secretary of the Interior during the Obama administration. The Constitution provides that no Member of the House or Senate may be appointed to an office in the Federal Government for which the salary was raised during the Member’s term. Fortunately, this does not prohibit the appointment of Senators or House Members to positions in the executive branch and will not prevent Senator Salazar from becoming Secretary of the Interior.
This is a commonsense solution with ample precedent, which I urge all Members to support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
What Mr Towns eluded to in the excerpt above is presented below.
No matter how many times the emoluments of various appointed office holders have been increased how does a retroactive decrease equate to adhering to the US Constitution? Using joint resolutions to erase history somehow seems, I dunno, WRONG!
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
August 11th, 2009 at 12:57 am
I don’t think precedent ever equals meeting the test of constitutionality. “Back in the day,” few knew what was happening. Now we all know. It should make a difference, and we should hold some feet to the fire. Hillary marched into her office unchallenged.
This is long standing - going back to immigration in 1800’s.
Good article. There are so many things we forget about.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Towns makes an argument that is not entirely without merit. Using the precedent angle can be effecitve. But my problem with that comes from a very simple phrase….two wrongs don’t make a right
And neither do three, four or more.
If the precedent enables passing laws that are contrary to the intent of the US Constitution I don’t care how many clones at the Justice Dept or even SCOTUS try to convince me it is right. It simply is not.
Once you say ‘this is okay’ then everything becomes okay if you are not interested in adhering to the founding principles.
To Maggie, my most loyal reader:
Thanks a bunch. Your opinion is absolutely valued here.
Hey folks, click on Maggies’ name link, she does some incredible work. A blog to serve as a template for informed expression on public discourse.
And no Maggie, I’m not blowin’ smoke