It's long been evident that the Constitution has only minimal
relevance to American governance. Most everyone seems to believe
that the natural born requirement means Arnold Schwarzenegger
can't be elected president, but not many other provisions are
taken seriously.
One such rule is that no legislator can be appointed to the
Cabinet if he or she was in office when Cabinet salaries were
raised. Two decades ago the Justice Department took a principled
position in interpreting this provision. No longer under Attorney
General Eric Holder -- who also doesn't believe that "state"
really means state for the purposes of congressional
representation.
Now, in the most recent development in the "Is Hillary Clinton
Constitutional?" saga the OLC reversed its own position from
1987 just in time for federal prosecutors to file a motion to
dismiss a lawsuit challenging Clinton's appointment that cites
the new memo (see footnote 21). Indeed, the motion was filed
the same day Acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron --
who had previously rebuffed Holder on the DC Voting Rights Act
(though we still have to see what the next confirmed
OLC head says, be that Dawn Johnsen or someone else) -- signed
the new OLC memo.
The issue is that Clinton's appointment to the cabinet -- as
well as that of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- violates the
Emoluments (sometimes called Ineligibility) Clause of Article
I, section 6 because both she and Salazar were sitting Senators
when cabinet salaries were increased. Congress later passed
short laws reversing these raises for the duration of both
officials' tenures but, as I've argued previously - and as OLC
head Chuck Cooper spelled out in the 1987 memo -- there is no
"net accounting" proviso which somehow erases the
constitutional defect. While the new memo relies heavily on
historical practice -- several presidents going back to William
Howard Taft (most recently Bill Clinton in appointing Lloyd
Bentsen to be Treasury Secretary) have proceeded in this manner
- the fact that political branches have acted in a certain way
doesn't speak to the constitutionality of that action.
In short, again the Obama Justice Department has found a
politically expedient way of dealing with pesky constitutional
issues. In this case, that way involved issuing a memo to
buttress a motion being filed that very same day in federal
court.
People typically hire lawyers to give them the answers they want,
not the right answers. President Barack Obama obviously has hired
just such a lawyer with his appointment of Eric Holder as
Attorney General.
Given that the obvious purpose of this provision was to prevent
bribery I would think that reversing the salary increase for the
duration of their term would address it.
I read the 87 memo, which stated that this practice had been done
in the past, but that in 1973, 4 out of 5 law professors argued
against it. So 4 out of 5 law professors wanted to kneecap
Richard Nixon.
It also argues that dropping the salary beforehand would not
prevent bribery, because Congress could just put the raised
salary back in place the minute the person was confirmed. Yep -
and they could also just delay the salary increase until the
person was confirmed, if they were that determined.
In practice, the Emoluments are gonna encrease for every
position, everywhere, always, during every single Congressional
term due to simple cost of living increases. If this reading were
adopted(and I do not grant that it is the more "plain" reading)
the practical effect would be endless opportunity for silly
political games as routine raises became political footballs.
long been evident that the Constitution has only minimal relevance to American governance. Most everyone seems to believe that the natural born requirement means Arnold Schwarzenegger … → Read full article… So What Does the Constitution Matter, Anyway? Related Post: Schwarzenegger asks Obama for tailpipe rules CNN Defines ‘A Moderate Republican’ Gov. Schwarzenegger: Time to Talk About…
Roy| 5.26.09 @ 1:09PM
Given that the obvious purpose of this provision was to prevent bribery I would think that reversing the salary increase for the duration of their term would address it.
I read the 87 memo, which stated that this practice had been done in the past, but that in 1973, 4 out of 5 law professors argued against it. So 4 out of 5 law professors wanted to kneecap Richard Nixon.
It also argues that dropping the salary beforehand would not prevent bribery, because Congress could just put the raised salary back in place the minute the person was confirmed. Yep - and they could also just delay the salary increase until the person was confirmed, if they were that determined.
In practice, the Emoluments are gonna encrease for every position, everywhere, always, during every single Congressional term due to simple cost of living increases. If this reading were adopted(and I do not grant that it is the more "plain" reading) the practical effect would be endless opportunity for silly political games as routine raises became political footballs.
Pingback| 5.28.09 @ 1:28PM
So What Does the Constitution Matter, Anyway? — ButAsForMe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: