The Link The arguments are made both ways in this article, but without a doubt, the Constitution is being violated. The Dems were very vocale about calling Bush out for things he did that were violations of the constitution, and still are. I would figure Obama would purposely not put himself in a postion to even be perceived as doing the same thing. Thoughts?
It is about pay grades, not about anything that she has or has not done. You can't go from one publically elected office to an appointed office and get less money or something crazy like that..... I would rather pick my battle on whether she is going to represent the US as a Secretary of State or a as a Democrat with an agenda. The diplomatic corp and way of doing business is alot different than the politics that she has been used to for at least the past 28 years. I have a real hard time accepting her as SOS. It is not a partisian thing as I thought Madeline Albright(SP) did a great job, probably a little Hawkish for most Democrats but considering her upbringing. I am sorry but HRC scares the tar out of me as a SOS. I do not think she will do this job more than 2-3 years. I hope I am wrong because she could do some serious damage. She reminds me of Alexander Haig, looks good on paper but just does not have the mentality to get it done. Just my opinion, I think PEBO could have done better. Let me think on that one and get back to you.
I don't think Clinton is going to accept a $4,700 pay cut. She needs the money. Just the other day she wrote to me asking for help in retiring her campaign debt.
There is no issue. It was explained in the news article and through common sense. What's the reasoning for strict interpretation? Do you really think that Hillary intended to give herself a pay raise when passing appropriation legislation? And if you want to take it to the slippery slope, why not a million-dollar pay increase for the future? I'm guessing James Madison and his team of lawyers didn't think through such pressing issues thoroughly enough. God help us.
No this is not Gitmo, but it is still a violation of the Constitution, no? I can think of a lot of things that are less alarming than Gitmo, but more alrming than this, that I wouldnt want the Congress to make an exception for either. Instead of going through the processes of ammending, Obama is fine with just have Congress make up an exception? WTF is that?
The law is in place to prevent congress from creating high paying positions and then putting themselves in it. If the salary of the position is lowered to the original rate, then the spirit of the law is upheld. No problems.
Let me get this straight. So because this is a minor violation in your opinion, then it can be handled by making some exceptions in Congress as opposed to making an ammendment stating that the appointed official can take a pay cut........ A previous poster has made the correct statement. It can't be interepreted, regardless of how minor the Hornfans West Mall crowd thinks the infraction is. For the record, it wasnt minor enough for Reagan to not appoint Orin Hatch to the SC, according to the article. There is a process in place to make it right. Obama is not doing so. By building the ivory tower throughout the campaign that he is now living in, he should do things the way he critized others for not doing them.
Just admit that you're reaching on this one. Or urge your representatives to impeach Obama the second he takes office for so egregious a transgression. I believe you were/are a fighting man and I respect that, but this is pretty damn whiny.
Isn't the constitution something that our friends on the right have embraced being ignored for quite a while? Good to see a couple of righties getting lathered up over this and not blink at McCain being born in a Foriegn country.
Let me know when Hillary Clinton sets herself up as head of Homeland Security, which can by executive order negate any local, state or federal law. Thanks to George Bush, maybe you should be concerned with a whole department of government completely disconnected from the Constitution, not some issue over $4,700.
people need to learn how to pick their ******* battles if they want to have any shred of credibility. not just here. i'm talking generally.
If the entire issue is based on the fact that Hillary voted a pay increase for the SOS, this is ridiculous. Obama should have a right to appoint whoever he wants. If someone is arguing that she shouldn't be SOS, then that person should have been on the side that McCain couldn't have been elected President since he wasn't born in the US. A military base in the Panama Canal isn't the US. However, I agree that in both cases, you should use practical logic in allowing both.
So as long as she doesn't get the pay increase, everything's good, right? And since she hasn't received the pay increase, there's no issue.
While this is the proverbial gnat on the elephant's ***, the bigger question is how do we pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to observe and which we deem too insignificant to screw around with? Or do we already do that anyway?
And Obama shouldn't be President because women and black folk do not have the right to vote....oh wait, I think they ammended that part of the constitution. I seemed to forget for a minute there that the constitution is a living breathing document that can change over time as times change. Plus Hillary can simply take a 5k pay cut and void this whole mess.
Hornpharm. You are right on the money. All that needs to be done is ammend the constitution the right way and be done with it. This would be a strong sign of getting back to respecting the constitution as it was meant to be. It has been disrespected as of late.
