http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/12/02/what_is_happening_in_this_phot Comments On: What Is Happening in This Photo? by Christopher Frizzelle en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by east coaster]]> Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:38:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Multiple]]> Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:19:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by star wars comparisons always help]]> Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:11:44 -0800 The Stranger
The pay increase at issue is an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) the president signs and has signed at the beginning of each applicable year since the enactment of COLA in 1990. Under the interpretation of the Constitution you prefer, no senator would be eligible for Secretary of State -- or several other positions -- unless the utterly innocuous COLA bill is reversed.

It's perfectly reasonable to reduce the pay and avoid any appearance of impropriety, and also reasonable to view an inflation-indexed cost of living adjustment as a far cry from an "increase of emoluments." Not to mention, the vote on this adjustment plan occured in 1990, long before Hillary was in the Senate.

It's plain that the intent of this passage assumed that ineligible Senators were receiving some material benefit rather than an utterly negligible increase of emoluments, and that either they or there fellows did something deliberate to enact the pay increase in the senator's present term. Neither here is true. Not to mention, if you want to disregard intent and stick to the exact written words without any interpretation, no matter how reasonable, then, well, Senator Clinton is a woman. No dice.
Posted by Gennifer Flowers]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:36:13 -0800 The Stranger They do NOT look like they are about to make out rapturously.

Which is too bad, really. It would serve Bill right!

(Kidding! I'm kidding... I'm sure President-Elect Obama would never do that to his wife.)

Posted by dafydd]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:35:22 -0800 The Stranger Obama: "Just TRY to run against me in four years when I'm the incumbent who gave you your job."
Hillary: "I'm a Clinton, bitch. Did you really think you'd be able to pick anyone else for this job?"
Posted by J]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:19:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Christin]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:04:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mathieu]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:16:06 -0800 The Stranger approves of retaining Gates. It's hard to find a more principled left-leaning take than that.
Posted by David]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:01:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Original Monique]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:01:18 -0800 The Stranger
Okay... So is there anyone on his national security team that isn't either on record as supporting the war in Iraq (Hillary) or the surge (Gates & Jones)?
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:00:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by David]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:54:19 -0800 The Stranger
If you read the entire LA Times article you will also see:

"So much for the actual money aspect and strict construction.

We're not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn't say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said "Emoluments."

It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee's elected term. Period. Which it has."

But who really cares what some old piece of paper says... right?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:51:14 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Greg]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:49:50 -0800 The Stranger
So one of his first moves is to emulate Nixon?...

Looks like the whole "out of Iraq in 16 months" thing is sliding too...

And hey... who did he select as Defense Secretary?... (That really is "Change", isn't it?)
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:44:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Vince]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:41:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Yeek]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:30:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:28:05 -0800 The Stranger
From the LA Times:

"Apparently, President Nixon ran into the same problem when he wanted to appoint Ohio's Republican Sen. William Saxbe as attorney general.

The solution back then, since dubbed the "Saxbe fix," was for Congress to pass another law (not without some outspoken dissent from Democratic senators, by the way) reducing the AG's pay so Saxbe wouldn't benefit financially from the higher salary he'd previously voted on."

Relax.


Posted by Andy Niable]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:27:48 -0800 The Stranger
...And is turned on by it.
Posted by Lily Fluffbottom]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:24:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by RL]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:21:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jackie treehorn]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:17:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Bauhaus]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:16:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by NapoleonXIV]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:13:43 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Hernandez]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:13:17 -0800 The Stranger