Friday, May 22, 2009

Hillary Clinton target of ridiculous lawsuit. Justice Dept wants the case thrown out

On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the ground that she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under an obscure part of the Constitution called the Ineligibility Clause.

This clause states no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if the pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term.

The salary of the U.S. Secretary of State under Condi Rice increased at least three times during Hillary's most recent U.S. Senate term.

The last time it was raised to $191,300. Congress lowered the salary back to $186,600 so she could take the post.

They are somehow claiming that her Senate term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation.

Judicial Watch's lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel. Mr. Rodearmel claims he cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an 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.

Recently, the Justice Department is asking a judge to throw out this case saying the lawsuit calling for Secretary Clinton's removal from office, has no merit. The Justice Department says Rodearmel does not have the legal right to sue because he has not been personally harmed by Clinton taking the position.

If the Justice Department is against you, I think you know you have some problems. Apparently Mr. Rodearmel has nothing better to do with his time and sees no cause greater to fight for than to try holding back a person who is fighting for right and just causes. Clearly, this isn't gonna go any further than this.

1 comment:

Stacy said...

Actually, the constitutional question of the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Sec. 6) is a problematic one, but it's one that Congress has worked around on multiple occasions. It will likely (and hopefully) be tossed however due to the person/group filing the lawsuits' lack of 'standing' to challenge her as SOS.

Post Your Comment Below:

Grab this Widget ~ Blogger Accessories