The Respectfully Republican Conversation
Comments
-
By Neal Boortz December 4, 2008 7:39 AM
It's no secret that Chicago mayor Richard Daley is in love with government and is most assuredly a union-friendly politician. So when you wake up one morning and Chicago is covered in snow, don't go looking to government employees to plow those streets clean so that the achievers can get to work.
Nope. In efforts to save money, Daley says that city crews would only plow streets during weekday union business hours, rather than working overtime. That means they will end the day at 9pm and cannot resume work until the next morning at 7am. Oh and weekends? Forget about it.
Ok, what's really going on here, folks? Mayor Daley could probably save a heck of a lot more money by canceling those union contracts and employ workers that are willing to work those overtime hours at a reasonable rate. But no. In Chicago, the labor unions will keep their jobs and plow less.
-
Shirley it is $2 mil a month cuz they get $25 mil a YEAR!!! i dont care how much they make if the company they work for can afford it. I love rich people cuz lets face it, poor people dont hire too many personal trainers!
I dont like greedy people that run company's into the ground or lay off other employees just so they can keep getting their own salaries!
-
HA HA, Sherri! $$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$$! I think I'll buy Ann Coulter's book. LOL
Yes, Moody, I've heard about the auto workers getting payed if paid off. That's absolutely ridiculous! When my dd was laid of from US Air after 9/11 she got a severance package and then drew unemployment.
My dh was in management when he retired from Bell South (not a union member anymore). Then AT&T bought out Bell a couple of years ago. THEN as all of you know our insurance changed and was/is horrible. Well, to me it is after having Bell's insurance. Anyway, I just heard that AT&T is getting ready to lay off 12,000 employees. I'm assuming that whatever the union decided with AT&T about our healthcare benefits was in the best interest of US so that perhaps we could keep it instead of losing it all together. I should be grateful that I have insurance especially after having bc. I believe management got what craft people do/did.
Sherri, seems like a lot of people are saying they should go into bankruptcy. I'm thinking the same thing!
Shirley
-
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998."Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001."We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!! -
djd and grace certainly want to tackle in the mud with their remarks .... At least Amy just said to ignore the naysayers. I certainly don't understand the venom or desire to call people who disagree them "stupid" or say that anyone who watches Fox news is "at the bottom of the heap" ... it's ok to disagree, I just don't that some have to include hate and venom with disagreeing.
I don't think ANY of us are stupid ... I think there are some mean people on this site but no one is stupid.
-
Moody,
So they didn't have hearings when they handed money out to AIG? I didn't think I missed them. They didn't come back once more, it was twice more, as I recall, for more of the same. I get confused with how many times they came back for money and how many times they went to luxury resorts on our dime. All too confusing.
To change the subject. Hillary won't have a problem of course with this, but her appointment might be unconstitutional. It's never dull out there when it comes to the Clintons.
"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."
I got this from somewhere else. Ok, so if the Senate increased the pay for cabinet members, and if that is true, and Hillary was in the Senate when that happened, then she can't be appointed to a cabinet position. A little thing like the Constitution shouldn't bother Hill and Bill.
-
They are so out of control:
"The Federal Reserve has made an additional $2 trillion in taxpayer-funded loans to troubled financial institutions, but has refused to submit to even the most modest level of transparency."
$2 Trillion??? Where were we when this was happening?
11/14/08
Sen. Cornyn To Oppose "No Strings Bailout" Of Auto Industry Sought By Democratic Leaders -
I think we'll all need this chart so we can talk about the spending that's going on in Congress and what the new buzz word will be. Quadtrillion. Nice ring to it.
http://www.cityofaustin.org/library/ff_math02.htm
Sherri,
I'm not one to keep such news from my Senators. I wrote both of them to ask if her appointment is unconstitutional. I want to make sure we all know how much our constitution means to our sitting Senators. I don't want to go through every Bill passed, or resolution to see if they increased salaries for Cabinet members, but I'd say they did because they always increase salaries. Our Senators would know that first hand anyway since they did the voting.
No we can't stop their spending. The Feds can juice up certain things to keep money flowing, so they have huge powers of the buck that we know nothing about.
-
Well, I tell ya what. They're gonna run out of paper and ink after printing all this no-good money. It's just paper!
Would someone please tell me how Hillary got her experience to be SOS. I keep hearing how good she will be.
Rosemary, since PEBO is a constitutional lawyer perhaps you could write to HIM and ask if his choice of SOS is constitutional....LOL.
Moody, ya think someone from over <--------------------- might read your post. NAH. They'd say it's all lies.
One thing ya gotta give PEBO credit for.....NO CHANGE! I think he's falling in line with President Bush's tax cuts until they expire (changed his mind), possibly agreeing to stay in Iraq until 2011 (can't remember which year that was recently discussed), cabinet member...what can I say (?). We repubs may begin to like him cuz he's sounding more like President Bush everyday.
-
Moody, I told you they would ignore your post. Now I know I'm going to buy Ann Coulter's book because I CAN'T TALK TO LIBS! They put me on ignore...LOL...cuz I cause havoc? How hilarious! And people who watch Fox are uneducated? My dem friend knew not one thing about Obama. Her "genius" friend knew NOTHING either. My emails, she said, drove him crazy. I suppose she forwarded them to him. I told her to have him email ME. ROTFLMAO!!!!! I would see his answers to her questions and they were stupid..he didn't even now the the homegrown terrorist never went to jail! Not that it makes that much difference...he was stupid. That's cuz these libs live in a world of their own. They've listened to Obama so much that they think CHANGE is gonna happened. What CHANGE? The YES WE CAN is gonna be NO WE CAN'T! Let's see where HOPE goes. I think it's time for THEM to ask why he's not gonna raise taxes...after all the economists have WARNED this would be disastrous.
-
Roctobermom, it has been Amy who has told everyone to ignore anyone who does not march to their beat. Moody just posted the quotes she posted here over there and Amy advised everyone to ignore naysayers. She's the leader of the pact and she likes it.
-
Shirley,
Sounds like we're going to have 4 more years of Bush anyway. Yep, so much for being a Constitutional lawyer. He should have known better himself not to appoint her. Afterall, didn't he also vote for pay increases? It's fun to think about, but somehow it won't effect Hillary. There's an out somewhere.
-
Apparently, Hillary can still be SOS at the pay rate that was in effect before she was in the Senate when it was raised. She just has to give up her Senate seat and take the pay rate that was in effect for SOS before she became a senator. Apparently this is not the first time it has happened - Congress will have to roll back the SOS salary to the level it was before HC became a senator - it is called the Saxbe fix. Bill had to do it when he nominated Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury Secretary and there are several other Presidents who also did it including Carter, Nixon, and Taft.
HOPE has become HYPE!!!! #44 is starting to look alot like #43!!
-
Just a little off topic, I thought you ladies would want to know that it appears that Mitt Romney's wife has DCIS -
-
I think it is funny how it was posted to "ignore" my post. If women over <-------- are that submissive, well then...........that would just add to why they also drank the dem kool-aid. $$
The problem is, the quotes I posted were directly off http://www.snopes.com/--- the website that sorts through to post the TRUTH! So everytime people BLAME THE WAR ON BUSH NEED TO CHECK FOR THE TRUTH. And the TRUTH is, Bush was using the SAME intelligence reports that the "EVER SO FAB" DEMS used when Clinton was president.
People that don't want to hear the truth or deny the truth suffer from denial- a psychological disorder: "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." $$
-
You know who had the "YES WE CAN!" slogan first? Bob the Builder! Sheesh...stealing a slogan from a kids' cartoon...LOL!
I'm still wondering where MY bailout is! Just 10% of ONE MONTH'S salary of the car industry guys would solve a world of problems for me. How 'bout they just forgive all our taxes for this year? That sounds good...
And now back to more intelligent converstation....
-
badboob It seems you are not the only one thinking this way:
Help Me Give America a Tax Holiday by Rep. Louie Gohmert (more by this author) Posted 12/05/2008 ET
Bailing out a leaky boat may be the only way to prevent it from sinking, but bailing out sinking banks with taxpayer dollars is no way to keep our economy from sinking.
I was one of the House conservatives who opposed the massive bank bailout last October because I didn't believe that government was smarter than the stock market. And now that about $350 billion in taxpayers' money has been spent without much success, I think it should stop right now. That's why when Congress reconvenes -- presumably Monday -- I'll introduce legislation to give all Americans a two-month income tax holiday.
Just think about how massive this bureaucratic nightmare has become. An estimated $7.7 trillion is being committed to bailouts by U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Compare that to the $1.2 trillion that will be paid in individual income tax for the 2008 tax year. In a matter of months, these men have committed 6.5 times what people will pay in income tax for the entire year.
Imagine if instead of those billions being squandered through failed bailouts, Americans could keep their own hard earned tax money to use as they need. It's too late to stop government from spending the first $350 billion, but it's not too late to take the other half of the original $700 billion and give it to the American taxpayer to do with it what he or she chooses.
Instead of allowing Americans to use their own money to decide which companies deserve to be stimulated or bailed out, our government granted that power to one man who is giddily giving away (they call it "investing") tens of billions of dollars each week in hopes something will re-create confidence in our economy. And it isn't working.
One reason it isn't working is that Secretary Paulson did too good a job convincing everyone that the financial sky was falling. He spent two weeks on national media proclaiming this. (After the bailout bill was defeated the first time in the House, I woke up the next morning and looked out my window. Sure enough, the sun was rising and the sky wasn't lying in pieces on my front lawn). But economic fear is like the most contagious of diseases -- easy to spread, but terribly difficult to stop.
The panic that Secretary Paulson helped create will have to be calmed by others.
After I discussed the matter with several colleagues, the idea of returning an entire year of income tax was not catching enough groundswell. The idea of ending the ability of Secretary Paulson to squander his last $350 billion on firms run by his former Wall Street cronies, however, was catching plenty. Pair that with at least two months of each taxpayer keeping his or her own tax dollars, and you have a great start to making people feel in control over and optimistic about their finances.
Newt Gingrich is one of the most amazing conservative idea people in the country. His and Jed Babbin's suggestions and encouragement led to my current proposal of instating a two-month tax holiday during January and February 2009.
Already, some have questioned whether this will be too difficult for accountants to implement in preparing the paychecks for those two months. It will require NOT deducting the federal income tax withholding and NOT deducting the FICA from the check and the employer NOT rushing to make the employer's payment to the IRS for the FICA. Some have wondered if that won't really confuse accountants trying to figure out the 2009 tax return. Since January and February will be income tax-free months, then any ordinary income during those months would be tax free. That should be easier to figure than the Alternative Minimum Tax!
One question I have heard is, "Won't some people be tempted to put some of that money in the bank instead of spending it?" Consider that one of the biggest problems with the economy has been the lack of confidence. That fear must be calmed, and our Wizards of Loss in Washington have not helped. If some Americans finally put a little nest egg or emergency fund in the bank, everyone will win, but especially the market and the economy.
Another question has been whether this proposal will put money in the "hands of the people who have caused our economic problem." Consider that Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to "loosen up the credit logjam" in order to create more borrowing in America. Also, consider that another purpose has been to help allow those delinquent on their mortgages to refinance or borrow money to catch up.
Then comes the most important question: "Is there even a snowball's chance of this getting to the floor of Congress for a vote?" Well, that depends entirely upon the American public -- the same public that flexed its persuasive muscles in August and September when it made clear that Democrats might jeopardize their majority if they passed another moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf while fuel was so terribly expensive.
With their overwhelming feedback, the public helped Conservatives to defeat the McCain-Kennedy immigration "reform" bill, persuaded the Democrats to give up (at least temporarily) on the offshore drilling ban, and won battle after battle in the last Congress.
The public speaks with a powerful voice. If we raise that voice to Speaker Pelosi, we will be heard and we may well be able to get this bill to the floor.
The bottom line is that the bill will give you more of your money; we will make the case for doing so. But if the American public decides that it is just not smart enough to spend its own money and needs someone in Washington to do it for them, Washington has certainly shown that it can do so.
On the other hand, if the American public decides they are sick and tired of their hard-earned tax dollars being squandered with people who don't deserve it, and that the public can't really do any worse with their own money, then its loud voice will be heard, and, for two months, the American taxpayers will get all of their money.
To make this happen, voices must be raised to each and every Representative and Senator to quit letting arrogant D.C. bureaucrats throw money all over the horizon and let people keep some of their own. Americans will get whatever they demand. Americans choose. Please make your voice heard.
Sign a petition supporting the Gohmert Plan.Louie Gohmert, a Republican, has represented the First Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2005. Sherri I was thinking the same thing about Obama outing Hillary and being off the hook with her as his SOS. I just cannot imagine those two working together.
$$$$$
-
Thanks Suz,
I knew there had to be a fix for the problem. Though the constitution doesn't say that's a fix, but it's nice to know it can be adjusted as they need it to be.
-
"The public speaks with a powerful voice. If we raise that voice to Speaker Pelosi, we will be heard and we may well be able to get this bill to the floor".
Good luck with that.
I don't remember us doing anything on a drilling bill. I remember Bush taking his moratorium off, but the congress got nothing done on drilling. Instead, the sky started to fall with the bail-out package and drilling went away. Is Gohmert changing recent history?
-
Somebody needs to give help her ... maybe a magnifying make-up mirror before she goes out of the House?
-
Here is an article about change ....
"Now, listen. During the campaign I inspired many of you with my message of change. Yet, in retrospect, what "change" meant exactly was left as relatively undefined. Since the economy has risen like cream to supplant our two ongoing wars as the failed Bush policy du jour, let's talk about that then. I can understand why senior politicians on both sides of the aisle and even the proletariat may have been a little hesitant to jump onboard the Obama economics train until now. You're seeing that what I really meant by change was a course correction back towards the policy makers and personalities of the last golden age of Democratic rule: Pax Clintonia. You might even be tempted to call it a Clintonomics redux, but it's not. It's not even a Rubinomics redux.
Even though I'm bringing in two of Robert Rubin's protégés, New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as director of the National Economic Council, we are going to depart drastically from the previous democratic paradigm. The United States is going to have to go even deeper in debt. Interest rates will rise. Mark my words. But, all hope is not lost. We'll be revisiting the bankruptcy code in short order. As a citizen you'll be on the hook for much more debt collectively. However, individually, I'm looking for ways to give you a free pass. Viva La Obamanomics!" -
OMGOSH!, Roctobermom...remove that picture. I can't stand Pelosi, but seeing that picture....I'LL HAVE NIGHTMARES! Where's the BOTOX!!??
$$$$ $$ -
LOL, again, Roctobermom. Here's the Obamaniacs....
And when the Obamanomics works here's me 
. Or, it may be this 
! -
Rocktobermom...talk about a horror flick! Her bottom lip looks like a snake...well if the lip fits! Good lord she is really scarey!
-
ADK, I'm sorry to hear about Romney's wife. I wonder if she chose a lumpectomy are mast? That wasn't clear to me. I'm glad they caught it early, but it's still scary. And it's bad enought that she has to live with MS.
Shirley
-
Interesting!
Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Judicial Watch has been stirring up quite a bit of trouble this week related to Hillary Clinton's pending appointment to serve as Secretary of State. It all started when we learned that Senator Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve in this capacity until at least 2013, when her term expires. Check this out from The New York Times political blog:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Democrats were working Tuesday to put together legislation making it possible for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state despite a constitutional clause that some critics argue should bar her from joining the cabinet...
Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that made a name for itself investigating the Clinton administration in the 1990s, raised the matter Tuesday with a statement asserting that Mrs. Clinton was ineligible to become secretary of state because of the so-called "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution. By the end of the day, Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, was consulting with Republican colleagues in hopes of putting together a bill to address the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let me explain what this is all about.
According to the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
(Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "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 encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.)
As The New York Times correctly points out, former President Richard Nixon did manage to circumvent this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration forced legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
Still, there has hardly been a consensus on the "Saxbe Fix" at the presidential level. President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this emolument provision and rejected the "Saxbe Fix" as a legislative remedy. Why?
Because "The Saxbe Fix," does not address the constitutional problem. This type of legislative "remedy" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it would not change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the "Ineligibility Clause."
Barack Obama was wrong to appoint Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State for a long list of reasons (some of which I referenced in last week's update). But now that we know there are constitutional barriers to Hillary's appointment, clearly Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position and save the country from a constitutional battle over her confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment.
As I wrote to you yesterday, now Hillary is attacking us. Her spokesman smeared us by calling us a "fringe group." Why? For pointing out that the U.S. Constitution - the supreme law of the land - should be followed by President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are now trying to do an end run around the Constitution by reducing the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels. Reports suggest that not one United States Senator, either Republican or Democrat, will oppose this unconstitutional legerdemain when it comes to the Senate floor next week. Is there not one Senator who will stand for the Constitution? (Reid seems desperate to avoid a vote that would put each Senator on record.)
-
Now, here's the NYT's blog.
December 2, 2008, 8:56 pm
Is Clinton Ineligible to Join the Cabinet?
By Peter BakerUpdated | 11:30 p.m. CHICAGO - Senate Democrats were working Tuesday to put together legislation making it possible for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state despite a constitutional clause that some critics argue should bar her from joining the cabinet.
The issue may seem esoteric but it generated attention Tuesday among legal scholars and bloggers arguing over whether it would be unconstitutional for Mrs. Clinton to serve as President-elect Barack Obama's secretary of state because the salary for her new office was increased while she served in the Senate.
Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that made a name for itself investigating the Clinton administration in the 1990s, raised the matter Tuesday with a statement asserting that Mrs. Clinton was ineligible to become secretary of state because of the so-called "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution. By the end of the day, Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, was consulting with Republican colleagues in hopes of putting together a bill to address the issue.
The issue stems from Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution, which 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." Emoluments refers to compensation.After Mrs. Clinton's last Senate election in 2006, the salary for secretary of state and other cabinet positions was increased to $191,300 from $186,600. In the past, Congress has gotten around this by passing a resolution cutting the salary for the office at stake back to what it was before the nominee's most recent election.
This became known as the "Saxbe fix," after it was used to facilitate President Richard M. Nixon's appointment of Senator William Saxbe of Ohio as attorney general. It happened most recently 16 years ago when incoming President Bill Clinton made Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas his treasury secretary.
"It's been dealt with each and every time," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Mr. Reid. "We're confident it can be dealt with this time." Mr. Manley said it was unclear whether the measure could be passed during a lame-duck session next week. "We're trying to work on this as quickly as possible," he said.
Judicial Watch, and some legal scholars, argued that the Saxbe fix is insufficient because the constitutional clause says a senator is ineligible if the salary was raised, which it was in this case, even if it is subsequently cut again.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of secretary of state and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation."
Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she and Mr. Obama had anticipated the issue and were prepared to resolve it. "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," he said. "But putting frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups aside, 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."
-
I think it's a shame that people are trying to get it so Hillary can't be the SOS ... I really like her. I'd like to see her get worldwide exposure. I know you all will disagree with me, but I thought she'd be a good choice for Prez. So, maybe this will help her later on ... Sadly, though, this position was probably given to her in exchange for a promise not to run against BO ...
-
I'm sorry that it's Hillary in this mess, but I don't like end runs around the constitution. Where does it end then? The constitution is explicit in its wording, and it figures it was Nixon who ran around it. And where was our Congress when he was doing it? And Clinton, on top of it all. Two wrongs don't make a right. Either we have a Constitution or we don't.
-
Since I'm not welcome on the other thread and have been reading over there about all the crisis we're in I have to say something about unions. My dh used to be a union member before he went into management. They never promised him the world..never promised to pay him for NOT working if layed off..but we had very good insurance and even better years later. And when he retired we had to pay MORE for it than when he was employed. And now, as everyone knows by now, our insurance deductible went from $200 per person, $400 per family (we had not kids at the time..grown) and we had wonderful drug benefits. Now we have to reach a deductible of $2300 (went up $100 for next year) between the both of us. BUT THE LAW IS once you reach Medicare age the healthcare benefit can be taken away from you. Even the EEOC was in favor of it while AARP fought it. We get no help for prescriptions until we reach that deductible. It's like having no insurance...we do get a "well person" checkup and I get one gyn and mammo payed for by the insurance once a year. I am trying hard to be thankful for my insurance. It's taken me a whole year. It'll still be extremely hard on us because having that much cash up front is hard to come by...Arimidex costs $743 for 90 days. And there's other scripts that I take that or not cheap even some that have gone generic. Last year we opted to pay $155 more a month because our out of pocket would have been met twice as soon and I'm always fearful I may need to go back to chemo. We would have to pay 10% after the deductible, but nothing with the higher month rate once we reached the out of pocket. This year since things have gotten really tough around our house financially we opted for the $200 a month premium and the only thing that changes is the out of pocket. But we can't worry about that now. We need to worry about paying our bills!
And, Roctobermom, I would be livid if a neighbor walked out of their home because it was worth half of it's original value but they still could make the payments. And when you talked about the people taking all the upgrades with them......WHY!? That's horrible. Just stripping the house? I could NEVER do that. We just paid $1900 for insulation...hmmmm...we certainly wouldn't take that with us...LOL
As far as the healthcare being taken away I doubt the union members have to worry about that..at least for the auto workers. That's not true in all cases with all companies that go under. My point is all unions aren't bad. I don't now if the people who are working for the auto industry are will to having their insurance provide less. I don't like seeing people who have worked all their lives with one company thinking that they will draw their pension and receive reasonable healthcare coverage have it taken away. Back in the olden days that's why people stuck to one company...the larger companies.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team