ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

What the Heck are Emoluments?

ADVERTISEMENTS
Hillary haters have latched on to the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution to argue that Senator Clinton, who Barack Obama just formally announced would be his Secretary of State, is constitutionally barred from taking the post. Here is a summary of the issue. Here is the pertinent constitutional language:
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 . . . . (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6.)
Emoluments are pay. The problem is that President Bush recently issued an executive order increasing Condoleezza Rice?s salary, which means that "Emoluments . . . have been encreased during" Clinton's tenure as Senator.

This isn't exactly new. President Nixon encountered the same problem when he wanted to appoint Senator William Saxbe to Attorney General. The solution, later called the ?Saxbe Fix,? reduced the pay level of Saxbe's position to where it was before the hike. Ta-da! No more Emoluments Clause problem.

Could a Saxbe Fix happen here? My understanding is that the constitutionality of the Saxbe Fix remains an open question because the Nixon administration was not forced to defend it in court. Worse, there is a rather persuasive argument against it -- in this case, emoluments have "been encreased" regardless of whether or not they are later decreased. 

While the issue is real, the whole discussion is also rather absurd given the Constitutional desecration that defines its historical context. Never mind that the current administration has attempted to erase the Fourth Amendment and rewrite the separation of powers rules -- chalk those doctrines up to history and call them "quaint."  When it comes to emoluments, however, it's time for lines in the sand.   Bill O'Riley must be preening.

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on December 01, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 10/31/26 15:15:31)