Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. Under the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the "emoluments" of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected. 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 text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called "Saxbe fix" last month, reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, allowing notably Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. Judicial Watch's lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate . . . ." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit. "This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton
Appointment on Behalf of State Department
Foreign Service Officer
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- January 29, 2009Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
is not to be trifled with," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."Related Documents
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer
Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- January 29, 2009
Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.
Under the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the "emoluments" of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.
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 text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called "Saxbe fix" last month, reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, allowing notably Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior.
Judicial Watch's lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate . . . ." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.
"This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution
is not to be trifled with," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."
Related Documents
Statement by Plaintiff David C. Rodearmel and Background Information
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Comments
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 22:12 — Will (not verified)
After a comprehensive review
After a comprehensive review of article 1, section 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it is suggested that serious reconsideration be given to filing a lawsuit with a tenuous foundation.
Senator Clinton, having resigned her senate seat, would have made herself illegible. I suspect that if this was pursued to state that she was a senator while appointed, it would only cause her to be reappointed by the President.
Furthermore, it might be more worthwhile to shift focus on some of the previous administrations questionable dealings.
reply
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 22:47 — Anonymous (not verified)
Ineligible
Heck, this has no chance. The court takes a dim view of enforcing the Constitution. Exhibit One: Barry
reply
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 00:18 — ex-Democrat (not verified)
Wow....I hope this is a trend.....
.....fighting for our Constitution.
Kudos JudicialWatch! Kudos!
Let's roll!
reply
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 02:44 — Concerned Citizen (not verified)
Constitutional eligibility
Do you think this lawsuit against Hilary Clinton will actually be heard? It seems that our Constitution does not hold much weight these days.
As you probably know, there have been several lawsuits filed against Barack Obama (and others) because it is beleived by many that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and, therefore, not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. All that is asked is that he present various documents which will prove or disprove his "natural born" citizenship status. These suits, thus far, have all been denied, not on their merits but, in most cases, due to "lack of standing" or jurisdiction.
It is my understanding, although it can probably never be proven, that the Courts (including the Supreme Court) have been told to throw out these cases.
Have you considered filing suit against Barack Obama based on this constitutional issue? Just thought I would ask.
Good luck with your lawsuit against SOS Hilary Clinton.
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer
Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC -- January 29, 2009
Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.
Under the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the "emoluments" of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.
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 text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
According to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called "Saxbe fix" last month, reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, allowing notably Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior.
Judicial Watch's lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate . . . ." The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.
"This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution
is not to be trifled with," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."
Related Documents
Statement by Plaintiff David C. Rodearmel and Background Information
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Comments
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 22:12 — Will (not verified)
After a comprehensive review
After a comprehensive review of article 1, section 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it is suggested that serious reconsideration be given to filing a lawsuit with a tenuous foundation.
Senator Clinton, having resigned her senate seat, would have made herself illegible. I suspect that if this was pursued to state that she was a senator while appointed, it would only cause her to be reappointed by the President.
Furthermore, it might be more worthwhile to shift focus on some of the previous administrations questionable dealings.
reply
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 22:47 — Anonymous (not verified)
Ineligible
Heck, this has no chance. The court takes a dim view of enforcing the Constitution. Exhibit One: Barry
reply
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 00:18 — ex-Democrat (not verified)
Wow....I hope this is a trend.....
.....fighting for our Constitution.
Kudos JudicialWatch! Kudos!
Let's roll!
reply
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 02:44 — Concerned Citizen (not verified)
Constitutional eligibility
Do you think this lawsuit against Hilary Clinton will actually be heard? It seems that our Constitution does not hold much weight these days.
As you probably know, there have been several lawsuits filed against Barack Obama (and others) because it is beleived by many that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and, therefore, not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. All that is asked is that he present various documents which will prove or disprove his "natural born" citizenship status. These suits, thus far, have all been denied, not on their merits but, in most cases, due to "lack of standing" or jurisdiction.
It is my understanding, although it can probably never be proven, that the Courts (including the Supreme Court) have been told to throw out these cases.
Have you considered filing suit against Barack Obama based on this constitutional issue? Just thought I would ask.
Good luck with your lawsuit against SOS Hilary Clinton.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Promoting Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in Government, Politics and the Law
Contact:
Posts
Comments
After a comprehensive review
After a comprehensive review of article 1, section 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it is suggested that serious reconsideration be given to filing a lawsuit with a tenuous foundation.
Senator Clinton, having resigned her senate seat, would have made herself illegible. I suspect that if this was pursued to state that she was a senator while appointed, it would only cause her to be reappointed by the President.
Furthermore, it might be more worthwhile to shift focus on some of the previous administrations questionable dealings.
Ineligible
Heck, this has no chance. The court takes a dim view of enforcing the Constitution. Exhibit One: Barry
Wow....I hope this is a trend.....
.....fighting for our Constitution.
Kudos JudicialWatch! Kudos!
Let's roll!
Constitutional eligibility
Do you think this lawsuit against Hilary Clinton will actually be heard? It seems that our Constitution does not hold much weight these days.
As you probably know, there have been several lawsuits filed against Barack Obama (and others) because it is beleived by many that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and, therefore, not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. All that is asked is that he present various documents which will prove or disprove his "natural born" citizenship status. These suits, thus far, have all been denied, not on their merits but, in most cases, due to "lack of standing" or jurisdiction.
It is my understanding, although it can probably never be proven, that the Courts (including the Supreme Court) have been told to throw out these cases.
Have you considered filing suit against Barack Obama based on this constitutional issue? Just thought I would ask.
Good luck with your lawsuit against SOS Hilary Clinton.