Comments on: The Constitution of the United States: Article I – Section 6 http://josephscott.org/archives/2008/12/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-article-i-section-6/ Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:47:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1-alpha By: Joseph Scott http://josephscott.org/archives/2008/12/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-article-i-section-6/#comment-232 Joseph Scott Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:32:17 +0000 http://josephscott.org/?p=302#comment-232 I could see the argument on the other side though, where even though she'd be willing to take the lower salary (as you mentioned, not like she needs the extra $4k) she still wouldn't be allowed to accept the position. The triggering event for disqualification in the text isn't the actual dollar amount to be paid after taking the position, but the fact that an increase took place at all. In principle I'd be fine with a Constitutional Amendment that changed the wording so that they'd be required to take the original salary. I could see the argument on the other side though, where even though she’d be willing to take the lower salary (as you mentioned, not like she needs the extra $4k) she still wouldn’t be allowed to accept the position. The triggering event for disqualification in the text isn’t the actual dollar amount to be paid after taking the position, but the fact that an increase took place at all.

In principle I’d be fine with a Constitutional Amendment that changed the wording so that they’d be required to take the original salary.

]]> By: Matt http://josephscott.org/archives/2008/12/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-article-i-section-6/#comment-231 Matt Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:13:59 +0000 http://josephscott.org/?p=302#comment-231 Yeah it looks like she can just take lower salary (it's 4k a year to someone worth 9 figures) and it avoids the whole issue. Yeah it looks like she can just take lower salary (it’s 4k a year to someone worth 9 figures) and it avoids the whole issue.

]]> By: Joseph Scott http://josephscott.org/archives/2008/12/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-article-i-section-6/#comment-230 Joseph Scott Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:01:18 +0000 http://josephscott.org/?p=302#comment-230 Wow, very recently :-) This is an interesting situation. I didn't realize that the President could increase their salaries by simply signing an executive order. I wonder if this has ever been used strategically. Say that in the next Presidential election Obama looses and Republican is elected, then the day before the new President is sworn he signs an executive order raising the salary of all Congressionally approved positions. He would then trigger this clause for any and all Senators and Representatives. If there weren't a precedent for this already (not once, but twice), then I'd tend to agree with Judicial Watch. The Constitution doesn't say anything about being required to take the original salary in order to take the position, it expressly forbids it taking the position at all under these circumstances. But given that this situation has been side stepped before I'm inclined to allow the side stepping in this case too. The right thing to do though would be to amend the Constitution to make it possible under a certain set of circumstances, like requiring them to take the original salary. Wow, very recently :-)

This is an interesting situation. I didn’t realize that the President could increase their salaries by simply signing an executive order. I wonder if this has ever been used strategically. Say that in the next Presidential election Obama looses and Republican is elected, then the day before the new President is sworn he signs an executive order raising the salary of all Congressionally approved positions. He would then trigger this clause for any and all Senators and Representatives.

If there weren’t a precedent for this already (not once, but twice), then I’d tend to agree with Judicial Watch. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about being required to take the original salary in order to take the position, it expressly forbids it taking the position at all under these circumstances. But given that this situation has been side stepped before I’m inclined to allow the side stepping in this case too.

The right thing to do though would be to amend the Constitution to make it possible under a certain set of circumstances, like requiring them to take the original salary.

]]> By: Matt http://josephscott.org/archives/2008/12/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-article-i-section-6/#comment-226 Matt Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:07:13 +0000 http://josephscott.org/?p=302#comment-226 This came up recently: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/clinton.eligible/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker This came up recently:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/clinton.eligible/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

]]>