Comments on: Obama v. Constitution http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/obama-v-constitution/ The eclectic ramblings of jonolan Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:56:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Random Linkage « Prudence Ponder http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/obama-v-constitution/#comment-9203 Random Linkage « Prudence Ponder Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:51:51 +0000 http://blog.jonolan.net/?p=1386#comment-9203 [...] nomination of Clinton is a “harbinger of how Obama will approach the Constitution while President.” Say it ain’t [...] [...] nomination of Clinton is a “harbinger of how Obama will approach the Constitution while President.” Say it ain’t [...]

]]> By: jonolan http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/obama-v-constitution/#comment-9180 jonolan Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:36:13 +0000 http://blog.jonolan.net/?p=1386#comment-9180 Yes there is ;) While I didn't reference it as such, that is the nomenclature for how previous Presidents have <i>"weaseled their way around the constitutional strictures by having the appointees’ respective salaries reduced to the levels they had been before their appointees had served in office."</i> As I said, this is a crisis of sorts - but not one that US isn't used to dealing with. Yes there is ;) While I didn’t reference it as such, that is the nomenclature for how previous Presidents have “weaseled their way around the constitutional strictures by having the appointees’ respective salaries reduced to the levels they had been before their appointees had served in office.”

As I said, this is a crisis of sorts – but not one that US isn’t used to dealing with.

]]> By: wayne http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/obama-v-constitution/#comment-9179 wayne Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:17:47 +0000 http://blog.jonolan.net/?p=1386#comment-9179 There's precedent for this, dating back to 1909. Its called the Saxbe Fix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix There’s precedent for this, dating back to 1909.

Its called the Saxbe Fix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

]]> By: jonolan http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/obama-v-constitution/#comment-9175 jonolan Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:20:39 +0000 http://blog.jonolan.net/?p=1386#comment-9175 Actually, the constitutional issue is in HRC's appointment, not whether or not Obama is currently POTUS; she would take up office on the same day Obama did. It also doesn't matter whether she resigns her Seat or not. Article Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 is quite explicit and ALL legislators have to resign their current positions before accepting Cabinet posts. Obama will sidestep the US Constitution in exactly the same manner that the past Presidents have - unless the Senate refuses to confirm Hillary because of this, which is beyond doubtful. The purpose of my post was to put the issue in perspective. What Obama and Hillary are doing is wrong, but not unusual in any way. This is not some catastrophe, as some have already tried to make it out to be. Actually, the constitutional issue is in HRC’s appointment, not whether or not Obama is currently POTUS; she would take up office on the same day Obama did. It also doesn’t matter whether she resigns her Seat or not. Article Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 is quite explicit and ALL legislators have to resign their current positions before accepting Cabinet posts.

Obama will sidestep the US Constitution in exactly the same manner that the past Presidents have – unless the Senate refuses to confirm Hillary because of this, which is beyond doubtful.

The purpose of my post was to put the issue in perspective. What Obama and Hillary are doing is wrong, but not unusual in any way. This is not some catastrophe, as some have already tried to make it out to be.

]]> By: Sisyphus Fragment http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/obama-v-constitution/#comment-9174 Sisyphus Fragment Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:13:17 +0000 http://blog.jonolan.net/?p=1386#comment-9174 Sen. Obama is not the President therefore your argument is moot. Sen. Clinton has not actually been appointed to anything yet. I find it incredibly likely that by the time this Article would actually have legal grounds, she will have resigned her seat in the Senate. Until then, I rest my case. When it comes to legal arguments it's all about semantics. Sen. Obama is not the President therefore your argument is moot. Sen. Clinton has not actually been appointed to anything yet. I find it incredibly likely that by the time this Article would actually have legal grounds, she will have resigned her seat in the Senate. Until then, I rest my case.

When it comes to legal arguments it’s all about semantics.

]]>