Will this stuff ever stop?

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...-cabinet-post/

Originally Posted by cologal

Will this stuff ever stop?

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...-cabinet-post/

And what "stuff" would that be?

looks like somebody didn't do their homework. I'm glad we've got the legal expertise of SteveZ.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

And what "stuff" would that be?

The Supreme Court is requesting a vault copy of Obama's birth certificate...

Souter turned down the case and then Thomas accepted it.

Now story is about Hillary not being able to accept the Sec of State position.

That's what stuff and what homework didn't I do?

Originally Posted by cologal

The Supreme Court is requesting a vault copy of Obama's birth certificate...

Souter turned down the case and then Thomas accepted it.

Now story is about Hillary not being able to accept the Sec of State position.

That's what stuff and what homework didn't I do?

Sen Clinton's situation is caused by a small piece of paper called the constitution and she is not the first and I am sure that the Obama team have it well in hand....probably a resignation as senator.

And I would ask also WHAT STUFF >? Have you been paying attention for the last 8 years ?

Originally Posted by rshoffer

looks like somebody didn't do their homework. I'm glad we've got the legal expertise of SteveZ.

As silly as it sounds, plenty of lawyers and politicians have found themselves netted by some rarely-visited clause in the Constitution or a Statute, and all look a little sheepish when it happens.

This particular clause was to keep a politician from voting for a pay raise to an office and then getting appointed to the same office. In its own right it makes good sense, as it keeps the political/financial leapfrogging down. It's just so darned rare that such a circumstance comes up that it's easy to miss.

The "fix" is relatively simple legislatively (especially with a Democratic Congress), and just involves some slick timing and a pay cut.

And if only I was half as sharp as the good doctor gives me credit to be.....

Originally Posted by stevez

as silly as it sounds, plenty of lawyers and politicians have found themselves netted by some rarely-visited clause in the constitution or a statute, and all look a little sheepish when it happens.

This particular clause was to keep a politician from voting for a pay raise to an office and then getting appointed to the same office. In its own right it makes good sense, as it keeps the political/financial leapfrogging down. It's just so darned rare that such a circumstance comes up that it's easy to miss.

The "fix" is relatively simple legislatively (especially with a democratic congress), and just involves some slick timing and a pay cut.

And if only i was half as sharp as the good doctor gives me credit to be.....

u r

Originally Posted by rshoffer

u r

Half as sharp ? ? ?

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I need to ask a question. Is the Supreme Court really asking for a copy of Obama's birth certificate? I hope it's true, but isn't the horse out of the barn on this one? Thanks SteveZ for interesting post.

Originally Posted by Irish Rover

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I need to ask a question. Is the Supreme Court really asking for a copy of Obama's birth certificate? I hope it's true, but isn't the horse out of the barn on this one? Thanks SteveZ for interesting post.

No, SCOTUS is not asking for anything, and won't. All that happens on December 5th is the nine justices meet in private conference to discuss cases they each have nominated for them to review. If the case gets 4 YEAs, then it is calendared. After that, it is the responsibility of the parties to present their cases. SCOTUS rules only on the past record and the briefs/arguments before it. SCOTUS is not acting as a trial court and has no investigative powers. SCOTUS won't issue any subpoenas for documents or witnesses.

And again, Mr. Obama is only one part of the case. The original filing concerned itself with challenges to the eligibility of three specific persons the NJ election commission allowed on the NJ ballot: Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain and Roger Calero. The latter was listed on the NJ ballot as the Socialist Workers Party candidate and was born in Nicaragua.

I was able to find a copy of the filing to SCOTUS. if you want to see what SCOTUS has to deal with, go to:
http://www.geocities.com/matlock.cvm...io-v-wells.doc

Thanks

Originally Posted by SteveZ

No, SCOTUS is not asking for anything, and won't. All that happens on December 5th is the nine justices meet in private conference to discuss cases they each have nominated for them to review. If the case gets 4 YEAs, then it is calendared. After that, it is the responsibility of the parties to present their cases. SCOTUS rules only on the past record and the briefs/arguments before it. SCOTUS is not acting as a trial court and has no investigative powers. SCOTUS won't issue any subpoenas for documents or witnesses.

And again, Mr. Obama is only one part of the case. The original filing concerned itself with challenges to the eligibility of three specific persons the NJ election commission allowed on the NJ ballot: Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain and Roger Calero. The latter was listed on the NJ ballot as the Socialist Workers Party candidate and was born in Nicaragua.

I was able to find a copy of the filing to SCOTUS. if you want to see what SCOTUS has to deal with, go to:
http://www.geocities.com/matlock.cvm...io-v-wells.doc

Steve....I did see that SCOTUS was requiring a vault copy of Obama's birth certificate..that is why I posted it. I will try to find the link.

I decided to edit this post rather than doing a new one. After searching there is a lot of chatter about this mostly on right wing blog sites...somewhere I am not known to hangout. But it appears all of the this goes back to a post on a single site. I cannot find any current links in left wing blogs nor the MSM.

I am sorry...thought it was true.

This issue was covered this morning on CNN by their legal reporter, Jeffrey Toobin. He was laughing over the blogged report that there would be a Constitutional block that would prohibit Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State. He explained the origin of the amendment was to prevent self-dealing by members of Congress and opined that like many laws that made sense a couple of hundred years ago, they don't have much application in current times.

Toobin went on to opine that the problem with the Constitutional amendment regarding emoulments is that it's unenforceable with the possible exception of a vote of the Congress. He went on to explain that the Constitution did not provide for the enforcement of this type of amendment and that the only parties that could litigate the issue would be those considered to have "standing" by a federal court. He said he couldn't think of any party that would be considered to have such standing. Further, he opined, he couldn't imagine any federal judge or the Supreme Court agreeing to hear this case.

He also explained that the same thing happened when President Richard Nixon wanted to appoint Senator William Saxbe as the United States Attorney General from his position as a United States Senator from Ohio. Saxbe had been a Senator when the Congress passed a pay increase from for Cabinet members. Congress eventually allowed the appointment when it accepted Nixon's request to lower the attorney general's salary to its pre-1969 level, an action which has become known as the "Saxbe solution".

Jimmy Carter used the fix to appoint Edmund Muskie as his Secretary of State. However, during the Ronald Reagan administration, the solution was deemed inappropriate for the appointment of Orrin Hatch to the United States Supreme Court.

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 Clinton administration. Ten Democratic Senators voted against Bush's use of the ploy on constitutional grounds. The logic behind objections to the Saxbe fix is that an increase and offsetting decrease are still unconstitutional. However, the common interpretation that has traditionally carried the Congressional majority is that the legislative intent was that net increases are the relevant consideration.

My guess is that this whole emoulments thing will be a non-event, just as it has been in several other recent sitautions.

I called this a long time ago.

Hillary, Secretary of State! Thats right!!! No worries.

Now if I can just find when I posted it!

Originally Posted by Rokinronda

I called this a long time ago.

Hillary, Secretary of State! Thats right!!! No worries.

Now if I can just find when I posted it!

Found it ..Sept 26th.....I had said "head the House Finance Committee"........big plans for Hillary, did happen though! My own quoted message.......

Originally Posted by Rokinronda

Funny how there was NO deficit when Bush took over! Now you, your children and grandchildren will pay the price of the botches of the Bush lies and unregulated administration. Even the governor of McCains home state is supporting OBAMA! HA!! I also agree with Chels, HOW DARE YOU say Obama is muslim!!!! BTW, I am sure Obama has big plans for Hillary. Hillary will most likely be appointed to head the house finance committee!!! Change is coming!!