Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hearing This Week in Judicial Watch Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton's Constitutional Eligibility
Marketwire ^ | 9/14/2009 | Press Release

Posted on 09/14/2009 11:40:33 AM PDT by Velveeta

Hearing This Week in Judicial Watch Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton's Constitutional Eligibility for Secretary of State

Challenge Filed on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer -- Court Hearing Set for September 16, 2009

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)) will be heard by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

Date: Wednesday, September 16 Time: 9:30 AM ET Location: Courtroom 22A The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

At issue is Hillary Clinton's constitutional ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State. Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's resignation.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel. The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel 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.

"Our goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the court puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution in the name of political expediency."

For more information on this lawsuit, see http://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton.

Contact: Jill Farrell 202-646-5188


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: hillaryclinton; judicialwatch; pipedream; sos
Well now....
1 posted on 09/14/2009 11:40:34 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

LOL, let’s get it on!


2 posted on 09/14/2009 11:42:58 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
We have been down this road before. All she would have to do is accept the pay prior to the authorization of the pay increase in the Congress in which she participated.
3 posted on 09/14/2009 11:44:28 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sarah Palin-Jim DeMint 2012 - Liz Cheney for Sec of State - Duncan Hunter SecDef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton


4 posted on 09/14/2009 11:44:33 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Sweet!

I need to talk with Mr. Rodearmel!

Woo Hoo!


5 posted on 09/14/2009 11:44:51 AM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I remember when this was talked about

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/12/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4645731.shtml

Has it been tied up in litigation since?


6 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:02 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Obama, the first ever 3 in a half year, lame duck TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

bookmark


7 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:06 AM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I’ve heard rumors that Hillary is going to resign and run for Governor of NY. Do you suppose this has anything to do with her decision?


8 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:06 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

She was ineligible to run the first Health Care Commission, and it was illegal for her to do that in secret. We all saw what became of that.

Then there is Algor fund raising from his office.

I do not expect the judicial branch to prosecute or even investigate mere Constitutional breaches, we have become so much more Progressive than that.


9 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:28 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Hillary may look on this as an opportunity.....for 2010? In the meantime would she replace the replacement senator. Look what ignoring the Constitution is doing to this country. Throw the illegal ba$tard$ out!


10 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:40 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

The clause only applies to males and not females as the Framers specifically used the word "he."

11 posted on 09/14/2009 11:45:52 AM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I remember this too.

Did she?


12 posted on 09/14/2009 11:46:01 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Obama, the first ever 3 in a half year, lame duck TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Regardless of how this turns out, I’m glad to see there is a growing movement in the US that believes the Constitution actually means something (vs. something that can be ignored when it is inconvenient.)


13 posted on 09/14/2009 11:46:24 AM PDT by Brookhaven (http://theconservativehand.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Then she will dump gov of NY to run for POTUS.


14 posted on 09/14/2009 11:47:01 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Obama, the first ever 3 in a half year, lame duck TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

What is Judicial Watch’s actually scorecard of victories in lawsuits against the Clintons?

Not just bringing to court, victory in the final decision?


15 posted on 09/14/2009 11:47:27 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I'm no racist, I oppose the political agenda of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Ayers as well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

That’s discussed in the lawsuit.


16 posted on 09/14/2009 11:47:36 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Judicial Watch, the “Washington Generals” of the legal world.


17 posted on 09/14/2009 11:48:13 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

Yes YOU do! Great idea. ;-)


18 posted on 09/14/2009 11:48:15 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Indeed, it’s been tied up since.

Per Judicial Watch’s site, they’ll go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Got popcorn?


19 posted on 09/14/2009 11:50:18 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I guess it depends on whether the rumor is true or not.

I did read today that Zer0 and Bubba had lunch together. Wonder what was discussed?


20 posted on 09/14/2009 11:51:59 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

LOL


21 posted on 09/14/2009 11:53:05 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's resignation.
Sing it Obama!
Image and video hosting by TinyPic "Whaaat's Law Got to do, Got to do, with it..."

22 posted on 09/14/2009 11:53:50 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I don’t have a clue.
However, their scorecard for at least entertainment value, is out of the park.


23 posted on 09/14/2009 11:55:44 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

I am not sure.


24 posted on 09/14/2009 11:55:58 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sarah Palin-Jim DeMint 2012 - Liz Cheney for Sec of State - Duncan Hunter SecDef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

We must go by the Framers “Original Intent” and it was their intent that that the clause in question only apply to males who were in a Congress that voted for a pay raise for a position that they would later be appointed.


25 posted on 09/14/2009 11:58:33 AM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I’m sure that this will be as effective as all the other lawsuits brought about by the same group against the Clintoons.


26 posted on 09/14/2009 11:58:53 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Does 0b0z0 have any friends, who aren't traitors, spies, tax cheats and criminals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

And there’s this:

Valerie Jarrett quietly jets to India to meet with the Dalai Lama on Tibet

WASHINGTON—White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrettt, who seemed to vanish at the end of last week, was actually dispatched to India on a delicate diplomatic mission: President Obama’ tapped her to meet with the exiled Tibetan religious leader, the Dalai Lama.

Jarrettt called on the leading figure for Tibet’s autonomy from China on Sunday and Monday, along with State Department Under Secretary Maria Otero, the Obama White House new Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.......

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/09/valerie_jarrett_quietly_jets_t.html
********************

Where’s Hillary???


27 posted on 09/14/2009 11:59:42 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Okay.

Are you sure that Hillary is a woman?


28 posted on 09/14/2009 12:01:34 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

What I remember is that she took the lesser pay and that this political expedient has been used before.

I am not sure it has been litigated before. I think not. The COTUS is quite specific in this area, but who knows how the courts will rule?


29 posted on 09/14/2009 12:04:23 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

She’s a figurehead anyway. She has no power in the Obama Administration and she knows it. She will be resigning before this lawsuit goes anywhere.


30 posted on 09/14/2009 12:08:41 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Hillary’s probably in secret talks with Ahmednutjob in Iran; Valerie Jarrett’s job is to get the Dalai Lama on board with worldwide condemnation of Israel.


31 posted on 09/14/2009 12:11:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Right but I have to wonder if all they do is run interference on these issues to keep someone else from actually being able to achieve a win.


32 posted on 09/14/2009 12:13:31 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I'm no racist, I oppose the political agenda of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Ayers as well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

I agree.


33 posted on 09/14/2009 12:20:10 PM PDT by Jane Austen (Boycott the Philadelphia Eagles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
"who knows how the courts will rule?"

They do have that wise Latina woman now.....

34 posted on 09/14/2009 12:20:51 PM PDT by sniper63 (Silent and stealthy - one shot - one kill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I believe by early 2010....maybe Feb...she will announce her resignation and run for governor. The curious thing is who replaces her.


35 posted on 09/14/2009 12:36:09 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

“I did read today that Zer0 and Bubba had lunch together. Wonder what was discussed?”
They discussed how Zero will seize ultimate control and appoint Bubba as VP.


36 posted on 09/14/2009 12:44:27 PM PDT by freebird5850 (O-Bomba is not the Messia. Jesus was a carpenter and could build a cabinet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I’m not sure I follow this.

Under Clinton the secretary of defense was a republican and I believe an elected Senator who had not completed his term.

YOU have other examples of elected officials serving on cabinet or other posts. Mitch Mcconnell? Doesn’t he apply?


37 posted on 09/14/2009 12:48:32 PM PDT by nikos1121 (Praying for -16 today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

George Mitchell NOT Mitch Mcconnell


38 posted on 09/14/2009 1:00:38 PM PDT by nikos1121 (Praying for -16 today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
announced today that a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So?....Why isn't Judicial Watch interested in Obama’s eligibility to be president? Where are are the law suits on **that**?

Also...I hope they will vigorously file suits demanding an investigation of Pelosi’s letters to the secretaries of 50 states requesting that Obama be placed on the ballot.

39 posted on 09/14/2009 1:23:28 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
All she would have to do is accept the pay prior to the authorization of the pay increase in the Congress in which she participated.

Which in fact she did.

40 posted on 09/14/2009 1:24:40 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

I’m not sure I follow this.

Under Clinton the secretary of defense was a republican and I believe an elected Senator who had not completed his term.

YOU have other examples of elected officials serving on cabinet or other posts. Mitch Mcconnell? Doesn’t he apply?

***

The Constitution says that a sitting Senator cannot be appointed to an office that was:

1. Created.

or

2. An exisiting position that had its salary increased.

Presumably, because the Senator would have had to have voted on the creation of the position or the increase of salary thereof.

The Constitution further dictates that the applicable time this covers is the length of the Senator’s current term. Since Hillary was elected in 2006, the applicable period would be until January 3, 2013 - or there abouts ...

As for Clinton’s Sec. of Defense, the position was not created - nor was it’s salary increased prior to the Senator’s appointment.


41 posted on 09/14/2009 3:26:20 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Ask Web Hubble...


42 posted on 09/14/2009 3:51:25 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Ok. THen she simply agrees to work for a salary commensurate with what she was making as a senator. CASE DISMISSED.


43 posted on 09/15/2009 1:23:56 AM PDT by nikos1121 (Praying for -16 today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson