Value of the Constitution

[the_pragmaticist]

I was browsing through some headlines today and I came across this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/clinton.eligible/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Apparently there is some hubbub about whether Hillary Clinton is eligible for a cabinet position at this time. Bush raised the salary for cabinet positions during her term in office, which makes her ineligible due to Article 1 Section six of the constitution. The entry basically states that if the salary of any civil office is raised during a senator or congressman's term, that lawmaker cannot accept the new position.

Now, in good faith, I don't care if she holds that cabinet position and if there's a way around the limitations then so be it. The general consensus in history has been that lowering the salary back to its original point is good enough to allow the lawmaker to accept the position constitutionally.

This was the line from the article that incited me to point it out though:

"There are many ways around this problem," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted. "One is for Congress to vote a lower salary. Another way is for Hillary Clinton simply to accept a lower salary. Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state."

This just in: No one has the right, no one has the standing, to enforce parts of the Constitution of the United States that are not convenient, at least according to published CNN analysts. Is that an inane statement or am I just harboring some repressed anger?

 

[divemedic]

That is essentially what the Judge said when dismissing the lawsuit that Obama was not a natural born citizen- he dismissed the case claiming that the Plaintiff did not have standing.

 

[Musketeer]

Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state.

Asinine. One of the greatest injustices, and I do not see where this is spelled out in the COTUS as the law but would welcome enlightenment, is that a citizen must actually suffer at the hands of the gov't in order to challenge a law or its actions.

This mentality is truly evil when it comes to the passing of bad laws. If they put a high enough penalty upon violation of it then the mere threat of the weight of the US gov't conducting a prosecution against a citizen and imprisoning them will prevent people from violating the law, thereby removing the standing to challenge it.

I can understand not having standing to sue in a civil matter but no company has the right to pass legislation and imprison you or tax you. Gov't should ALWAYS be able to be challenged in court by a US citizen. Wasn't there something about petitioning gov't in the COTUS...

 

[Musketeer]

and I have grounds to challenge her!

I am a NY resident. She is an elected NY Senator, voted in by the people of my state to serve a six year term (whether I like her or not). For her to abandon that post to seek higher pay in an appointment position, in violation of the COTUS, while allowing the governor to appoint a replacement is a subversion of the will of the electorate of NY. Anything in the COTUS is the will of the people and anything done by gov't to violate it is a subversion of that will, damaging all.