Now that's doing it the Constitutional Way!
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 11, 2008 3:12pm CST
Sen. Hillary Clinton had a problem. Because she voted on a raise for the Secretary of State as a Senator, she couldn't Constitutionally accept the appointment of Secretary of State.
There was nothing she or Obama could do about this, but there was something the Senate could do. They repealled the raise, which means that Hillary Clinton is Constitutionally eligble to be Secretary of State.
I guess it's a good thing for her that she is the same party as the majority in the Senate. Can anyone... even the most staunch supporter of Major Leader Harry Reid (if there are any at all), imagine him calling for action that would allow a Republican nominee to accept a nomination in a Republican administration?
Party politicing aside, I'm glad they actually worked within their Constitutional authority in this matter instead of merely ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever they think they can get away with.
1 person likes this
6 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
11 Dec 08
Gee, talk about a "back-handed compliment"! The Democratic Senate can't do anything right even if they DO something right, can they?
"Can anyone... even the most staunch supporter of Major Leader Harry Reid (if there are any at all), imagine him calling for action that would allow a Republican nominee to accept a nomination in a Republican administration?" Obviously, it didn't happen that way so nobody can know for sure what Reid or the other Democrats in the Senate would have done but can't you just give them credit for doing something the right way and be done with it...lol?
Annie
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
11 Dec 08
I call is the way I see it. I commended them for working it out in accordance with the Constitution, but then wondered if they would have done the same favor for a Republican.
1 person likes this
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
12 Dec 08
Yeah, nice they did it the "right" way,but so what? Bottom line - - - do the rest of us get to "take back" our decisions so that we can move up in the world or take a better job? Do you think that if this had been Rep doing it, it wouldn't have been done so quietly? Yeah, they did it "right", but for the wrong reasons. And once in, you know it will probably just be voted on again and she'll get the raise anyway. And I don't see her or Obama doing anything to give "main street" people jobs, muchless raises! Why should all them up ther on the hill get raises and keep their jobs and do "take backs" so that they can take the higher paying jobs nad stay employed while thousands and thousands are being layed off every day here in "main street"? This is just disgusting. Why are the Senators not voting to give "main street" raises? Why do they get raises every year... while the country gets minimum wage...where do they get off thinking they are more important than the people that put them there!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Oh, I'm not saying I'm thrilled with their actions... only that they did it within the authority of the US Constitution.
@coffeebreak (17798)
• United States
12 Dec 08
Just goes to show that politicians CAN do it the right way - if they want to. It is just that they seldom seem to want to unless they personally get something out of it!
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
11 Dec 08
I didn't even hear about it on the news but I am glad that they took care of it without breaking the constitution.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
12 Dec 08
I had read that this has happened before and this is what was done.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
12 Dec 08
You're probably right, I don't believe there would have been much "reaching across the aisle" had it been a Republican nominee but, I agree with you, I'm glad they actually worked within their Constitutional authority in order to resolve this.
