Since Bush said so. On Jan 30, 5:56 am, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > and since when is following the constitution being a moonbat, > moonbat. oh wait, that's right, you libs prefer to pick and choose > those parts that you can exploit, and ignore those parts you > dislike. > > On Jan 30, 6:47 am, swamp fox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > talk about being a moonbat ! this is an old issue and has been > > resolved but you keep on with your idiotic ranting about > > it ...podna !. > > > On Jan 30, 6:35 am, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > A State Department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court > > > against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claiming she > > > is constitutionally ineligible to serve. > >ion ut > > > Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and > > > prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing > > > the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C, on behalf of > > > U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. > > > Rodearmel. > > > > Rodearmel, a resident of Virginia, maintains Clinton is > > > constitutionally ineligible to serve as secretary of state and that he > > > cannot serve under her because doing so would go against 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. > > > > "This is not a partisan, political or personal issue," Rodearmel said > > > in a statement. "I have faithfully served under six prior Secretaries > > > of State of both parties, and under eight Presidents since first > > > taking the oath to uphold the Constitution as a young Army officer > > > cadet. … As a commissioned State Department Foreign Service Officer, a > > > retired Army Reserve Judge Advocate Officer, and as a lawyer, I > > > consider it my Constitutional duty to bring this case to the courts." > > > > The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members > > > of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the > > > secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of > > > the office were increased during the senator's term. > > > > The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, > > > "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 increased during such time; and no Person holding any > > > Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House > > > during his Continuance in Office." > > > > According to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary > > > of state increased as many as three times since Clinton began her > > > second, six-year Senate term in January 2007. On Jan. 1, 2007, the > > > secretary of state's salary increased to $186,600. In 2008, it > > > increased to $191,300, and on Jan. 1, 2009, it increased again to > > > $196,700. > > > >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87451- Hide quoted > > >text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
