Clinton constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State hearing 9/16  |
|
 Hillary Clinton has a eligibility case hearing on Sept 16,2009 to know if legally Clinton can hold the office of Sectary of state.
Rodearmel VS Clinton case it appears possibly some laws of the United States was set aside in order for Barack Obama to appoint Hillary Clinton as the Sectary of state.
Beings we have had a media black out on corruption and possible corruption in the white house I thought I would post this so members will know about this pending court case in regard to Hillary Clinton.
(Rodearmel VS Clinton court case)
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.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/sep/september-14-2009-hearing-week-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clintons-constitutional-eli
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.  peavey (3812) | 4 months ago |  That's good to know, thank you for the information! I'll be following this if I can find more information on it.
| |
| |
|
|
|
12 Hrs or Less US Passports When Trust & Time Count, we offer Solutions 24/7, Wash/DC-866-727-7362 www.PassportDocs.com | add comment |
|
|
|
2.  ladygator (1173) | 4 months ago |  I didnt even know that there was an issue about her being able to hold place in office. So who will be the runner up?
| |
| |
|
|
|
Washington D.C.'S Premier Entertainers D.C.'s Top Comedy Magician Team. Exciting Dove And Stage Illusions. www.speedthro.com | add comment |
|
|
|
| 3. martieann (44) | 4 months ago | I think her resignation makes the point moot. I am sure the founding fathers had in mind that they did want any person serving in two government offices at the same time, not that they could leave on office to take a position in another.
Her resignation, means she is no longer a member of the Senate. Therefore, this seems like just another attack on keeping the new president of the United States from getting on with the business of running the country.
I would be interested to know, if there has ever been any one else appointed to such postions, while holding another office? | |
| |
|
|
 ParaTed2k (4586) | 4 months ago |  Yes, let's just shut up and never question anything Obama does. His election gives him ultimate power, ultimate authority and who are we little people to question such a great man.
| |
|
|
| martieann (44) | 4 months ago | Questioning is fine, but bringing lawsuit after lawsuit, simply because people don't like who is elected goes beyond questioning.
Funny, How many people question Bush in this manner? I did not see people bringing lawsuit after lawsuit just to harass him.
This is a lot like Sara Palin went through, with the constant lawsuits and people felt sorry for her. What's the difference.
Besides, you must not understand how our government runs if you think the president has ultimate power. His power is limited by the other branches of government. Why do you think he is having so much trouble with health care and other issues.
He simply does not have the authority to do whatever he wants. | |
|
|
| sid556 (10788) | 4 months ago |  ya...look what they did to clinton. It was an obvious set-up and sadly he bit but all over something dumb that should have been between him and his wife....cost the country billions and distracted the president from real issues at hand.
| |
|
|
| JodiLynn (518) | 4 months ago |  yes, where is kenneth starr these days?
| |
|
|
|
Washington Dodge Dealer Learn About New Deals at Your Local Washington Dodge Dealer www.DodgeDealer.com | add comment |
|
|
|
| 4. dragon54u (9710) | 4 months ago |  It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it? There's no end to the corruption in this administration--or do they just know so little about the Constitution that they are ignorant of the laws?
Good thing we have watchdogs like you or we'd never hear about these things--the media refuse to let the people know.
| |
| |
|
|
|
Add Your Name Today Take a Stand for Women's Rights. Stop the Stupak Amendment. www.StopStupak.com | add comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
