Hillary it is, then

Didn't Simon suggest in a previous post that this has come up before, and a half-arsed work around was used, one that he found wholly unsatisfactory, but which carried the day at that time?

I can understand why "letter of the law" folks find this very troubling. It's a pretty clear rule, and if HC voted for an SoS pay rraise, then the rule quite clearly applies to her current situation. But I suspect that few folks really give a turd, and that the previous workaround will carry the day again. Easily.

Clearly the intent of the emoluments clause was to prevent congresscritters from crafting a high-paying gov't job which they would them take over. That's a worthwhile intent. I'll cheerfully agree that ideally the letter of a constitutional rule should be obeyed or a proper amendment crafted. But since I don't think HC's appointment is a case of a corrupt senator feathering the nest, I'm really not very troubled by it.

And FWIW, I am quite familiar with the usual argument about why I should be troubled. After all, it's the CONSTITUTION, and its sanctity is under threat. Everybody panic! :-) But my reaction is still "oh, well." It's nowhere near the constitutional nick to founder intent that has been hacked for example by using interstate commerce to let the feds do and tax and regulate whatever they feel like.

It feels like a boutique or even arcane concern to me. And constitutional sanctity aside, the GOP stands to gain little from pushing this. So they won't. I might feel worse if I felt that constitutional integrity had never before been threatened or breached. But no one thinks that. We're not talking about a virgin pane of glass here.

Hi Pat,
There is certainly no merit in my saying that Republicans have stretched the law many times, so why not Obama. Yes, there is no doubt that erosion is erosion and we are sliding down that slippery slope thanks to Republicans and Democrats alike.

I would add that given the events in India, Pakistan, Caracas, Syria, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Iran (time is running out), Gaza, Lebanon, etc., this HRC pick is one bending that might mean a lot to our future world (Thank God it wasn't Kerry or Richardson). Now Susan Rice at the UN is disturbing. Carter's role?When Hillary sticks it to our adversaries can Obama wimp out? Perhaps, Bill's dealings will become grist for media in due time and sink her ship. Maybe Hillary will be a great SOS.

Simon, I am far more worried about other heavy Obama bending that will likely come in the form of bailouts, media control, new regulatory authority and other federal mandates. I know you are concerned about that possibility even more than this Clinton thing. I am hoping along with Brian Obama steers a centered course. One can't prove that Obama is steering to the Left right now. While it might be a bad omen to some for Obama pushing Hillary through, perhaps we should wait a bit longer before warning the Constitutional sky might fall. There is a SCOTUS that leans right the last time I checked. For now, Obama doesn't appear to be caving to the Left. In fact, the Lefties seem a bit angry how "old school" Obama is playing it. Onward Afghanistan....LOL

On the bright side, Franken will lose and Hillary will get a chance to bitch stare Ahmadinejad.......

Add On:

Bill Clinton signed this into law. I wonder how much money from Chicago flows to the Middle East. I wonder whether the Obama SEC STATE, AG and Treasurer will see how much closer the indicted list gets to the South Side....

Hhhmmmm open vote for Unions and closed books for Middle Eastern charities.....

Increased means the act of increasing them, which could either mean at their approval or at their instatement.

And no there's no specific limitation that they be performed by Congress, but it is a Congressional power, and so the context in which it cites emoluments as being increased is with the Congress performing the act. As far as the executive acts on its own, it claims that right by fulfilling legislation already enacted by Congress, so it wouldn't be unfair to look at the President as fulfilling an act of Congress passed before that term.

But if Pat is right, and the writers of the language understood that the power could be delegated, or were specifically talking about the instatements of the increase rather than their approval, then those arguments don't matter.

My tendency is to interpret the language of a law in a way that's not counter-intuitive to the intentions behind the law. My impression was that the intent was to prevent Congressmen from voting for positions or salaries that they would later fill. There may have been more behind the intent though , like Pat suggests.

So what, do you think the crisis will be resolved by Obama lowering the salary back to how it was before she was in the Senate? Is that acceptable Constitutionally?