Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > The Newsroom > Political Talk
Facebook

Notices

Political Talk Political News


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #21  
Old 12-02-2008, 09:38 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S

Aw man ... you got him now counselor ... let's impeach the President-elect ...Yawn.



When will this madness end????


You guys don't give up do you ... this issue is as old as CC1.

It's been maneuvered around by sitting Presidents and incoming ones (Republicans and Democrats alike) with what is called the Saxbe Fix


Some info:In James Madison's notes at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there was fear of members of Congress creating new jobs or giving raises to existing jobs, and then taking them for themselves. Madison viewed creation of offices and increase of salaries as one of the greatest fears of corruption of legislative service. Madison originally proposed a one-year ban on such service, but it was passed in its current form without a time consideration.[2] Corruption like that previously seen in the British Parliament was a consideration during debate by the framers of the Constitution.[3]While this fix is named after Saxbe, it had been used before, on February 11, 1909, when United States Senator from Pennsylvania Philander C. Knox was picked by President Taft to be Secretary of State. At the time, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary determined the remedy of resetting the salary to its pre-service level, and the whole Senate passed it unanimously.[4][edit]


Legality-Some legal scholars do not believe that the Saxbe fix addresses the constitutional problem. Because the language of the rule is an absolute prohibition, Michael Paulsen, a Constitutional law expert, said that:
A 'fix' can rescind the salary, ... but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.



Recent examples: United States President Richard Nixon wanted to appoint Saxbe as the United States Attorney General from his position as a United States Senator from Ohio following the firing of Elliot Richardson in the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973.[6] Saxbe had been a Senator in 1969 when the Congress passed a pay increase from US$35,000 to $60,000 for Cabinet members.[7] Congress eventually allowed the appointment when it accepted Nixon's request to lower the attorney general's salary to its pre-1969 level. Saxbe went on to serve as Nixon's fourth and final Attorney General.[8]Jimmy Carter used the fix to appoint Edmund Muskie as his Secretary of State after Cyrus Vance resigned following Carter's attempted military rescue of U.S. hostages in Iran.[6] However, during the Ronald Reagan administration, the solution was deemed inappropriate for the appointment of Orrin Hatch to the United States Supreme Court in June 1987 after Congress had approved $6,000 pay raises for Supreme Court Justices in February.[9][10][11][12] Hatch had been on the short list of two finalists with Robert Bork, but after Bork was rejected and the Ineligibility Clause had been brought to light he was no longer under consideration. Thus, Bork, Douglas Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy were subsequently nominated.[10]The issue came up again when as he was leaving office, President George H.W. Bush approved a Saxbe fix so that Lloyd Bentsen could move from the Senate to take the job of Treasury Secretary during the Bill Clinton administration.[13] Ten Democratic Senators voted against the most recent use of the ploy on constitutional grounds, including current Senator Robert C. Byrd of United States Senator from West Virginia (the only remaining Senator currently serving). Byrd explained his position at the time: "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.

The logic behind objections to the Saxbe fix is that an increase and offsetting decrease are still unconstitutional, but the common interpretation that has traditionally carried the majority is that the legislative intent was that net increases are the relevant consideration.[8]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hillary accepts Sect State job A_PoMo Political Talk 13 11-22-2008 02:13 PM
Hillary as Sec State A_PoMo Political Talk 21 11-17-2008 05:13 PM
How obese is your state? Ferd Fellowship Hall 42 07-18-2008 04:36 PM
could this be the state of the church? Sister Alvear Fellowship Hall 0 07-15-2008 03:39 PM
A Sad State of Affairs... revrandy Fellowship Hall 35 04-02-2008 06:54 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.