Secretary of state salary cut for Clinton

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton will earn less money if confirmed as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

That's because Congress has cut her future salary for the Cabinet post by about $4,700 to comply with an obscure clause in the Constitution. Under it, no member of Congress can be appointed to a government job that would provide a pay increase during the lawmaker's current term.

Rice makes $191,300. Congress Wednesday night rolled back the salary that the next secretary of state will get to $186,600, the salary that was in place when Clinton began her current Senate term in January, 2007.

As a senator, Clinton currently makes $169,300.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_pay

---

Fixed. Hillary will be confirmed.

However, constitutional scholars believe that it needs to be tested in court (Supreme Court) and that it skirts the exact wording of the constitution. Someday we should simply fix it (constitutional amendment).

That's certainly the feel Jonathon Turley has for it. It remains to be seen whether anyone's going to make a problem about this.

resolution.

also took a cut in salary to avoid the constitution. And he stated that if tested in court it might not be sufficient.

He also pointed out that this rule is a bit of an anachronism, but that it is still the constitution, and as such isn't something that we can write off.

The real question at this point though is whether anyone bothers to pursue it into the courts.

Yea, that guy.

:eyes:

was risible on its face: he wanted some fine point of UK law, governing Obama's father's citizenship and thus how and whether the UK might countenance a claim by Obama for citizenship in the UK, to trump the clear language of the US Constitution, as amended

I do hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the US declared independence from Britain well over two centuries ago. A dispute and a war followed. Britain lost that war and recognized US independence with the Trwaty of Paris, well over two centuries ago. It is true that Britain had second thoughts somewhere around 1812, but that misunderstanding was also resolved long ago. Because the US is independent, obscure points of UK law do not determine US citizenship

As far as I can tell, Turley also wants to eliminate "standing" rules. But such rules are well-established and prevent the courts from being swamped with frivolous litigation such as Donofrio's. There's no question that there were potential litigants who would have had standing to challenge Obama's citizenship -- and that such a suit would have appeared from someone with standing, had there been any material case. No material case has arisen, and no case at all has arisen timely from anyone with standing

We should violate the constitution because "this isn't that important".

I think that's what we complain about the current misadministration.

I'm not saying Hillary shouldn't be confirmed. But we should remove this restriction from the Constituion... or is it simply a piece of paper that can be safely ignored whenever it proscribes something you want to do?

with you as the pay is now in line with the constitutional limit and you must have undeclared reasons for getting worked up over it.

There is a constitutional ban on appointing someone who VOTED on a raise for a federal position TO that position.

I'm not "worked up" over it. It simply needs to be fixed. Or do you simply wish to ignore the parts of the constitution that you disagree with or that "aren't important".

Because it has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

Both Nixon and Bill Clinton made such appointments, and both reduced the salary of the cabinet member to pre-raise levels, and it was never tested in the Supreme Court if this actually met the intent of the framers.

Until it is or until the Constitution is amended, it will always be a question.

You forgot Taft. 1909

But I'm going to take the opinion of Jonathan Turly on this before I take the opinion of folks here.

He has said that it isn't decided law. So, unless YOU are a constitutional scholar of equal reputation to Jonathan, we'll just have to disagree on this.

that a member of Congress have no personal material interest in the creation of offices or augmentation of salaries

By voting, as just done, to decrease the salary to previous levels, Congress goes on record with regard to its interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Constitutional language

There thus appears to be no material issue here

As in it gives an appearence of legality. Whether it's actually legal or not is something that's never been tested, and a lot of people--i.e., constitutional law scholars--think that it's not. It remains to be seen whether it'll ever be tested in the courts.

It seems obvious that this in no way violates the intent of the law.

The problem is that it's part of the constitution. The constitution should be amended to remove this restriction. But it's still there. We spend a *lot* of time here complaining (rightly) that Bush simply ignores the parts of the constitution that he feels are "quaint" or "not in the countries interest". We shouldn't start the next administration by doing the same thing (even if it "isn't the same thing"... but the wingnut right will say that it is).

Constitution is law. And the intent of the law as written in the constitution is clear.

Bush and his crowd have been using the technicalities to do what is against the spirit of the law. This is not the same. This is how it is supposed to work.

The current wording is perfectly clear enough in it's intent. No having legislators pass pay raises for a position they expect to be shortly occupying so they can make a quick buck for themselves. It's a conflict of interest concern.

The salary roll back addresses that intent 100%. There is no problem here. The position Hillary is being offered is, to be precise "Secretary of State with annual salary of $186,600". Is that raised from where it was before? No. Is she therefore receiving any material compensation she had a hand in awarding herself? No. So no problem. She is NOT being offered a position whose salary has seen a recent increase she herself voted on.

The only way you get a problem is if people decide that semantics are more important than clearly expressed intent and start blabbering about "but... but... but... it was raised before it wasn't raised and technically if you think about it in just this way from just this angle it still doesn't matter one single tiny little bit but I can make it look like it does! So there!"

And to those people I say 'screw off'. If we had to amend the constitution for things like that we'd be doing it half a dozen times a year. It's frivolous.

an amendment (to make clear what you just said, minus the "screw off") or a Supreme Court decision which also makes it clear. The Supreme Court has always had the power to determine the intent of the framers.

Otherwise, even now, the same people that almost got the Supreme Court too consider the bogus "natural born" language and the circumstances of Obama's birth... will be back litigating that Hillary can't serve... after her confirmation vote. And this time they could possibly get the Supremes to hear the case AND issue a stay preventing her from taking office. And that would cause a bit of trouble for the Obama administration.

The chances of this happening are at least as good as the whole "Obama isn't qualified to be President because one of his parents was not a citizen" case going to the full court.

"The current wording is perfectly clear enough in it's intent. No having legislators pass pay raises for a position they expect to be shortly occupying so they can make a quick buck for themselves. It's a conflict of interest concern."


When she voted to raise the SoS' salary, I highly doubt that she was expecting to be named SoS in the future POTUS' administration in 2008/2009. Hillary had her eye on either a POTUS or VP position and thus, there would have been no conflict. Thus, to me, she had never intended years ago to benefit from such a small salary raise.

That is, unless one is willing to truly believe that Hillary had this great foresight back then that she would be named SoS and wanted that extra 2.5% salary increase (4700 / 186600).

Most of the people who serve in both the Senate and even the House are (for better or worse) millionaires.

When they are appointed to jobs (they are the only ones that this applies to since they are the ones who vote on such matters) almost all of them could probably care less about the $180K to $200K salaries. The vast majority of such people would probably do the job for a nominal fee ($1/year).

When any of them retire from service the books they write and the speeches they give will far outweigh the amount of government salary they get while they are serving.

It would simply be nice to see a Supreme Court decision that states that the "fix" that has been used by Presidents past and now proposed by PE Obama is sufficient to meet the intent of the framers.

patriotic. They tack all kinds of crap on every bill for a Constitutional amendment. In our time, watch for things like anti-gay marriage, anti-flag burning, etc. I would rather see a thousand appointments defeated than see the Constitution re-opened in these times.

Next?

Granted, with the pay reduction, her appointment would be well within the spirit of the clause in question, but I tend to think that the plain meaning of the text should be paramount, not the spirit or rationale underlying the text. Would the Supreme Court uphold the appointment? I'm not sure, but I'll bet the decision wouldn't be unanimous.

and even if not unanimous, a clear majority (6-3 or better) writes an opinion that reducing the salary of such an appointment to a level previous to the vote to increase meets the requirements of the constitution. That would settle the issue for now and future appointments.

Really?

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected..."

Spot the problem if we're going to take "plain meaning of the text" the way people are talking about doing here as being more important that the obvious intent. Or do you seriously want to argue that we SHOULD read that clause as only applying to males because that's what it technically says in the "plain meaning" even though it's ridiculous to think they actually intended for females to be immune to it somehow?

Intent, when it is clear, is far and away the most important consideration. Taking any other approach leads to ridiculousness and frivolity. How is the "plain meaning" approach the preferred one, exactly? In what way is it superior?

I'm not a literalist nor am I naive enough to think that text is all that matters when it comes to statutory or constitutional interpretation. (For example, I don't think that the President's being "Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy" precludes his being commander and chief of the airforce as well.) My views certainly don't commit me to reading the clause in question as only applying to males. Obviously the pronoun "he" can mean "he or she." I don't believe, as you apparently do, that when the rationale behind the text is clear, we should just ignore the text and appeal to the rationale. I think that there ought to be a presumption that the rationale behind a law should be invoked only when the text is vague or ambiguous. Perhaps that presumption is overcome in the case at hand. I'm inclined to think that it is not, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

The Constitution just says that she can't hold a civil office, and still sit in the Senate. If confirmed, she resigns her Senate seat, and all is well.

Now, it could be a real kick in the pantsuit if she resigns her seat before confirmation, and then the Senate rejects her confirmation.

The historical context was solely to make sure someone couldn't vote themselves a pay raise for the position is all.

Senator who voted against her confirmation? Other than that, I cannot think of anyone who has standing. I do feel that, if the Framers had thought of the lower salary fix, they would have included it. However, I am still sorry to see Democrats circumventing the Constitution,though, regardless of how unnecessary the provision may be.

Now she can go on to be an excellent SOS. :toast:

Julie--really pullin' for Team Obama to make great things happen

what's with all the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth here?

I seriously doubt that the $4700 drop will make a serious dent into the Clintons' household budget.

"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; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

What's the big deal? Clinton takes the SoS gig, resigns her Senate seat, then the new Senate can increase her pay again. No big deal.