Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
Justice Scalia ---
It may seem that there is no harm in using committee reports and other such sources when they are merely in accord with the plain meaning of the Act. But this sort of intellectual piling-on has addictive consequences. To begin with, it accustoms us to believing that what is said by a single person in a floor debate or by a committee report represents the view of Congress as a whole—so that we sometimes even will say (when referring to a floor statement and committee report) that “Congress has expressed” thus-and-so. . . . There is no basis either in law or in reality for this naive belief. Moreover, if legislative history is relevant when it confirms the plain meaning of the statutory text, it should also be relevant when it contradicts the plain meaning, thus rendering what is plain ambiguous. Because the use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the interpretation of any statute—and especially a statute that is clear on its face—I do not join this portion of the Court’s opinion.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
Regardless of the "reason", the precedent has already been set. In 1909, a Senator was appointed as Attorney General. The salary increase was temporarily reduced in order to accomodate the President's appointee.
This is really not a big deal-- they just need to adjust her pay.
The big deal would be if the Senate ignores this inconvenient truth. After all, they are the ones to confirm or deny the President's Appointments.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Regardless of the "reason", the precedent has already been set. In 1909, a Senator was appointed as Attorney General. The salary increase was temporarily reduced in order to accomodate the Presicent's appointee.
This is really not a big deal-- they just need to adjust her pay.
The big deal would be if the Senate ignores this inconvenient truth. After all, they are the ones to confirm or deny the President's Appointments.
You have a reference for that? The first I know of was in 1973, and it is clear in retrospect that Nixon had no regard for the laws.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
Ummm no we don't. The reasons they put it there could have been different for any number of those who voted for the inclusion of the clause. As Justice Scalia will tell you Legislative intent is irrelevant, what does the text say.
Some may have wanted it to keep Senators from serving in dual posts while others may have wanted it to keep them from creating positions and raising the pay and taking an appointment.
The fact is the Constitution says you can't do it, to do so is a clear violation.
Hey Barron where were you when the Bush & Chinny chin chin were elected as Prez and vice prez. Doesn't the constitution say both can't be from the same state?
Old chinny chin chin just said I am from Montana even though that was a lie.
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
That is the US Constitution, do we need to know the reason they put it in place or should we obey the document that was set in place to govern this land.
Baron, I just saw this. Are you serious or just a bit stressed out? I was asking a legitimate question to you as an attorney. I simply wanted to know the purpose of the statute. I did not make any sort of comment or inference beyond that. Sometimes we get so caught up with our "teams" that we automatically see everything as a challenge...and incidentally, yes I do believe that statutes should be reasonable and we should be able to know the reasoning.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
That is the US Constitution, do we need to know the reason they put it in place or should we obey the document that was set in place to govern this land.
Goodness...with that mentality women would have never gotten the vote!
__________________
"I am a great and sublime fool. But then I am God's fool,
and all His works must be contemplated with respect."
Re: Hillary Constitutionally barred from Sec. of S
This is from Section 1, Article 6 of the US Constitution - Just posting this in case the reference has not been posted.
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...
I don't usually read MSNBC news but I did read this article.
I was asking a legitimate question to you as an attorney. I simply wanted to know the purpose of the statute. I did not make any sort of comment or inference beyond that. Sometimes we get so caught up with our "teams" that we automatically see everything as a challenge...and incidentally, yes I do believe that statutes should be reasonable and we should be able to know the reasoning.
Linear Mode
