About Hillary as Secretary of State

[Puppycow]

When Obama picked Biden for Veep over Hillary, I thought that it was a questionable decision. A lot of people argued that she has "too much baggage" (i.e., Bill). Even Biden himself questioned the decision, suggesting at one point that Hillary might have been a better pick than himself. I would have guessed that those positions might have been reversed: Hillary as Veep and Biden as Secretary of State. I also would have imagined that Hillary would have attracted more votes in the election than Biden.

He won anyway, but the fact that he chose Hillary for SecState seems to indicate that the whole conventional wisdom rationale behind not picking Hillary was not operative. You get her "baggage" and "drama" anyway if you pick her for Secretary of State, so why didn't he pick her for veep instead?

The only thing I can think of is this: Denying her the veep was punishment for not conceding the primary earlier and fighting to the bitter end for the nomination, but Secretary of State was a reward for her and Bill getting on board and campaigning hard after the convention.

[Boo]

It is much easier for the President to disavow or fire the SecState then the VP.

IMHO; the primary reason for Clinton wasn't chosen as VP is that the role Obama sees his VP is that of a counselor. Biden will not be in the forefront of any real policy or area as a manager or leader to get something done. His job seems to be more of learned advisor who can study an area or situation and bring a knowledgeable viewpoint to a discussion.

Hillary appears to be someone who is not content with working in the background nor do I think is Bill someone who feels she should either. Hillary wants (needs?) the attention and spotlight that the SecState offers but the VP would not under an Obama Presidency. Bill, as we have seen throughout the campaign, is not someone who will idly sit by if he felt she was not getting the attention and props he feels she deserves.

It was likely much easier to get the concessions they needed from him with her in the public role of SecState then trying to keep him toned down for 4 years from the residence at the Naval Observatory. While Biden's public speaking filter is occasionally lacking, he can be the model of discretion compared to Pres. Clinton when he feels Hillary has been slighted in some way.

All of which leads back to my first position; it's easier to fire the SecState then your VP. ;)



Boo

[casebro]

I think Hill didn't want VP because, what with all the foreign 'donations' to Bill's library, the two of them will be much better off financially if she has some real power on the international front. VP is worthless to them.

Anybody here know if cabinet members (and their husband's) portfolios get blinded ? Any good reference on what the Clintons are worth now, for future comparison?

[Ziggurat]

There's actually another problem: constitutionally, senators are not supposed to be appointed to jobs whose sallary they've voted on. Which applies to sec. state.

[BeAChooser]

There's actually another problem: constitutionally, senators are not supposed to be appointed to jobs whose sallary they've voted on. Which applies to sec. state.

From Article I, section 6:


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;


Hillary Clinton is an elected Senator from New York whose term has not expired.

The salary for the Sec of State was increased during the time for which she was elected to serve as senator.

Ergo, it is indeed unConstitutional for her to be appointed Sec of State.

But then the Constitution doesn't matter any more, does it? :D

[Puppycow]

There's actually another problem: constitutionally, senators are not supposed to be appointed to jobs whose sallary they've voted on. Which applies to sec. state.

It says here (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/the-new-york-senators-of-foggy-bottom/) that there have been many senators in the past who have served as Secratary of State.

And it says here (http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/30/yes-winguts-hillary-can-be-secretary-of-state/) that there is no constitutional problem.

The far right is all a twitter that the "Ineligiblity Clause" prevents Hillary from being named Secretary of State. They base their reading on the phrase "shall have been," and demand the Constitution be read like a shrink wrap agreement.

However, if one is going to read the Constitution this way, all she needs to do is resign first. At this point, she isn't a Senator, in the present tense of the exact wording of the section, since it doesn't say that anyone who has been a Senator or Representative, only one that is. If one is splitting hairs, then one has to be careful that all the hairs split in the right way.

The reality as Devins and Fisher point out in "The Democratic Constitution" is that the solution come to when President Taft appointed Senator Knox to be Secretary of State is what has been known as the Saxbe fix. This is done by Congress passing a law lowering the salary to what it had been when the representative took office. Particularly since, in Madison's own words, because the clause was meant to prevent representatives from voting pay increases.

In this case, Hillary never voted on the pay increase, it was from a law from before she was in Congress, and Bush raised the salaries as a cost of living adjustment. This means it can be argued that the emolument has not been increased, since the emolument is not the specific salary, but the specific salary adjusted for inflation. Again, literal mindedness cuts both ways.

Finally, since each Congress has to pass the law, at any time that Congress wants to put an end to the practice, it can do so by refusing to pass the law, and, in the case of cabinet appointments, refusing to confirm.

This isn't even a tempest in a teapot.

So as long as she resigns from her seat in the senate first, no problem.

Also, what the heck is this word?: "encreased"
Does that mean to put a crease in something?

[BeAChooser]

It says here that there have been many senators in the past who have served as Secratary of State.

The fact that others have violated the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution wasn't violated.

And it says here that there is no constitutional problem.

In response to your blog opinion, I offer this from a notable left-wing source:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/19/hillary_clintons_fix.html


Article One, Section Six, also known as the emoluments clause ... snip ... says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office "the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term." This applies, we're advised, whether the member actually voted on the raises or not.

In Clinton's case, during her current term in the Senate, which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300. This situation has arisen before, most famously in the case called "The Saxbe Fix," but it involves a controversial, somewhat tortured reading of the Sacred Document.

... snip ...

Congress acceded to Nixon's request to lower the attorney general's salary to its pre-1969 level. Apparently this had been done once before, in 1909, for a senator in line to be secretary of state. ... snip ...

But Democrats in the past have inveighed against this sleight-of-hand. In the Saxbe case, 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against the ploy on constitutional grounds. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle."


Are you saying that Senator Byrd was wrong?

So as long as she resigns from her seat in the senate first, no problem.

Sorry, but the clear intent of the founders in adding Article I Section 6 Clause 2 to the Constitution was to preclude Senators and Representatives from taking a civil service job that was created or whose salary was increased during their time in office. Saying its ok because a Senator resigns does not change that intent ... it just ignores it. What you are saying, in effect, is that it would be ok if the Senate were to create some high salaried position for one of it's member as a reward to that member and even allow that member to vote yes on it. You approve of that?

[Puppycow]

What you are saying, in effect, is that it would be ok if the Senate were to create some high salaried position for one of it's member as a reward to that member and even allow that member to vote yes on it. You approve of that?

No, that's a strawman. I'm saying I don't care if a senator serves as Secretary of State.

Are you saying that Senator Byrd was wrong?

Absolutely. Only 10 senators voted that way, so about 90 must have voted the other way, including most of the Democrats. So the precedent is there.

[Darth Rotor]

Are you saying that Senator Byrd was wrong?
He is frequently wrong, so what?
Sorry, but the clear intent of the founders in adding Article I Section 6 Clause 2 to the Constitution was to preclude Senators and Representatives from taking a civil service job that was created or whose salary was increased during their time in office.
WHoa, BAC. Sec State is a Cabinet position. How do you get away with calling it "a civil service job" here?

Is the Space Shuttle just another commute?

If Cohen can be appointed Sec Def, why, again, can't Hillary be appointed Sec State? He was a sitting Senator at the time of his appointment. That a pay raise was voted is reason not to?

A reach, BAC, a reach, and "clear intent of the founders" as your argument made a small flag go up.

DR

[JamesDillon]

But, so far as I'm aware, no one actually plans to implement the Saxbe "fix" even if it were a constitutional solution (and I have my doubts about that). And the fact that it Bush rather than Congress raised the Secretary's salary doesn't seem immediately relevant to the constitutional question. Finally, the fact that other sitting Senators have in the past taken Cabinet positions (assuming that the salary was increased during their time in Congress, otherwise there's no constitutional obstacle at all) is entirely irrelevant to whether such appointments were constitutional.

[BeAChooser]

WHoa, BAC. Sec State is a Cabinet position. How do you get away with calling it "a civil service job" here?

My mistake. But it is a "civil office", agreed?

If Cohen can be appointed Sec Def, why, again, can't Hillary be appointed Sec State?

Maybe he shouldn't have been.

and "clear intent of the founders" as your argument made a small flag go up.

Well if you don't think that was the intent of that limitation in the Constitution, what do you think was the intent of that limitation?

[Darth Rotor]

My mistake. But it is a "civil office", agreed?
It is a cabinet position. A cabinet position is typically one where a nominee is proposed and the Congress does its "advise and consent" deal, or rejects the proposed nominee.
Maybe he shouldn't have been.
Indeed, but perhaps we both feel that way for different reasons. Another topic, no derail desired.
Well if you don't think that was the intent of that limitation in the Constitution, what do you think was the intent of that limitation?
I may get back to you on that one. No quick answer. Will ponder first.

DR

[BeAChooser]

It is a cabinet position. A cabinet position is typically one where a nominee is proposed and the Congress does its "advise and consent" deal, or rejects the proposed nominee.

But is it a "civil" office? (As opposed to a "military" office?)

[Puppycow]

Finally, the fact that other sitting Senators have in the past taken Cabinet positions (assuming that the salary was increased during their time in Congress, otherwise there's no constitutional obstacle at all) is entirely irrelevant to whether such appointments were constitutional.

Au contraire. Precedents matter in matters of law. Stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)

Perhaps they will do the Saxbe "fix" again. I guess we'll see.

The difference is probably irrelevant to Hillary anyway. I hear tell she's worth many tens (hundreds?) of millions.

[Tricky]

But is it a "civil" office? (As opposed to a "military" office?)
It is not a military office. Neither is the office President. You don't elect or appoint military officers. The President may not have a single day of military training, yet the President is still Commander-in-Chief of the military.

So yes cabinet offices, including Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are "civilian" but not "civil service". Why is this distinction important to you?

[JamesDillon]

Au contraire. Precedents matter in matters of law. Stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)


I'm well aware of what stare decisis means, and this is not it. If a court had previously held that implementing the Saxbe solution obviated the Emoulments Clause issue, then that finding would be due some deference if anyone were to challenge Clinton's appointment in court-- though the degree of deference would depend largely on what court made the determination (and even if it were the U.S. Supreme Court, it's always free to overrule its own precedent). But the fact that an action was taken in the past and no one filed a lawsuit over it does not make the constitutionality of that act a matter of stare decisis. Or, if we're throwing Latin around, res judicata.

[BeAChooser]

I hear tell she's worth many tens (hundreds?) of millions.

Yeah. Pretty amazing for someone who didn't even own a house or a car before entering "public service". But what do you expect when someone has the golden touch and can turn a 1000 dollars into 100,000 in one year with cattle futures. :rolleyes: Or maybe it had more to do with the millions of illegal dollars that were pouring into the Clinton coffers back in the 90's in exchange for access to all that lovely, "formerly", restricted US technology and secrets. :D

[gdnp]

Yeah. Pretty amazing for someone who didn't even own a house or a car before entering "public service". <snip>

Please stay on topic. You have your own thread to attack Hillary. This thread is about Obama's logic in choosing her, with some drift into the question of whether her appointment is constitutional.

[SezMe]

Yeah. Pretty amazing for someone who didn't even own a house or a car before entering "public service". <snip>
To underscore gdnp, this is a perfect example, BAC, of your unhealthy obession with the Clintons. The issue is her advisibility/desireability for Secretary of Defense and why Obama made the pick. Please check your fixation at the door.

[SezMe]

It is much easier for the President to disavow or fire the SecState then the VP. <snip an excellent analysis>
Well said. I think you nailed it.

[gdnp]

Well said. I think you nailed it.

On the other hand, the secretary of state has authority over the state department, whereas the VP has only as much authority as the president chooses to give him/her. The only constitutional authority is breaking Senate ties. I wonder how Biden feels about this. He was brought on to the ticket for his foreign policy experience, but with all the other heavy hitters Obama has brought in I wonder if he will end up the odd man out. He may have imagined himself Dick Cheney but end up Hubert Humphrey.

[BAC mode]Maybe Obama was concerned that the Clintons would have the Foster-Brown hit squad take him out if Hillary were next in line for the throne? :D [/BAC mode]

...must...not...tease...the animals... :o

[ZirconBlue]

According to the Newsweek article that came out after the election (http://www.newsweek.com/id/167905)the problem with selecting her as VP was having Bill around during the election:


Obama was not inclined to choose Hillary, not so much because she had been his sometime bitter rival on the campaign trail, but because of her husband. "You don't just get Hillary, you get Bill," said a top Obama adviser. The Obamaites had benefited from Bill Clinton as a loose cannon in the primary campaign. They did not want to be wounded by him in the general election. Still, from time to time, as Hillary's name came up in veep discussions, and Obama's advisers gave all the reasons she should be kept off the ticket, Obama would stop and ask, "Are we sure?" He needed to be convinced one more time that the Clintons would do more harm than good.


(emphasis added)

Now that he's won the election Obama is more free to choose who he thinks will do a good job, rather than having to consider how they would help or hurt him in the election.

[Darth Rotor]

[BAC mode]Maybe Obama was concerned that the Clintons would have the Foster-Brown hit squad take him out if Hillary were next in line for the throne? :D [/BAC mode]

...must...not...tease...the animals... :o
Yes, we must, tease the animals, since the discussion concerns Secretary of State, not Zookeeper of the Nation here.

Theory Hypothesis: BAC is a scorned suitor of HRC, and pantsuit fetishist, thence the obsession with both her and her beau/husband/ashtray target.

Initial supporting evidence: forum obsessive behavior at JREF discussion forums.

Example of behavior, the principle of denial and inverse psychology: Madmardigan continually exclaiming "I hate the woman" when he is in love with Sorsha. (Film, Willow)

Applicability to this thread, HRC as Secretary of State: political opponents of HRC can use internet memes as fodder for both criticism and general bad vibe generation in an effort to embarass the incoming adminstration. Internet discussion forums and blogs are frequently referenced in political discourse in more mainstream media. Ain't no fury like a suitor scorned, so to speak.

Discuss.

Disclaimer: this post was crafted with humorous and lighthearted intentions. Any resemblence to actual historical events and fetishes is strictly accidental and error induced.

DR