Supreme Court asked to boot Hillary
Case alleges her appointment violated Constitution
November 12, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
wnd.com
Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court are being asked to boot Hillary Clinton from her position as U.S. secretary of state in a lawsuit that charges her appointment violated the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that monitors and investigates government corruption, confirmed it has filed a notice of appeal of its case to the nation's highest court.
The lawsuit asserts Clinton is ineligible for the post because the Constitution, Article I, Section 6, states: "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."
Clinton was serving as a senator from New York immediately prior to her selection by President Obama as secretary of state.
The case notes the text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
The case was brought on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel, who argues that "compensation and other emoluments" of the office of secretary of state rose during Clinton's tenure in the Senate.
A special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, concluding that Rodearmel lacked "standing."
But Judicial Watch has argued Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former 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 U.S. Constitution.
"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as secretary of state until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do end-run around the Constitution."
Judicial Watch's review determined the government clearly knows there is a problem because of its attempt to maneuver around it by rolling back compensation for the secretary of state to the level in effect Jan. 1, 2007.
"This [fix] 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 Mrs. Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate," the organization said.
Rodearmel also "has demonstrated that he is being injured in his employment by being required to serve under, take direction from, and report to a constitutionally ineligible superior, Mrs. Clinton," Judicial Watch said.
Judicial Watch said the "Ineligibility Clause" is seen by many as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption, limit the size of government and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
At least two other presidential appointees, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Army Secretary John McHugh, also are ineligible to serve in their positions under the "Ineligibility Clause," Judicial Watch said.
As WND has reported, James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the evils" of corrupt governments in which legislators created salaried positions – or increased salary – and then secured appointments to the comfortable jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in the colonial and British governments, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice.
According to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times after 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, it increased again to $196,700. |
