During his regular “Political Daily Briefing’ feature on CNN’s “No Bias, No Bull” program on Tuesday evening, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post used Hillary Clinton’s famous descriptive about her conservative opponents in describing one group’s latest effort against the outgoing New York senator: “A group called Judicial Watch, charter members of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- they were on to Hillary back during the commodity trading days -- now, they say because of Article One in the Constitution says you cannot serve in the position where you got a -- voted for a pay raise while you were in Congress, they’re saying she is constitutionally ineligible.” He then opined that “the only thing for Hillary to do is just give her $191,000 salary as Secretary of State to Judicial Watch for their extraordinary creativity -- just save everybody the court costs.”
Milbank is correct in pointing out the historical opposition that Judicial Watch has towards the Clintons. However, the organization has been a bit “bipartisan” in its lawsuits, since it also sued Vice President Cheney over the apparent lack of transparency surrounding his energy task force.
Host Campbell Brown brought up this development by asking Milbank about “some very strange rumblings about Hillary Clinton. Some conservatives saying she might not be able to serve as Secretary of State because of a clause in the Constitution.” After Milbank gave his initial analysis/commentary, Brown turned to CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who, before concluding that this “does appear to be a problem,” admitted that despite reading the Constitution “many times,” that he had “never noticed this clause before.”
Earlier, Toobin described some of the history behind this clause: “There is actually this clause, and presidents have to had to deal with it in the past. When President Ford nominated William Saxby, who is the senator from Ohio to be attorney general, this issue came up.....[I]t’s called the Emoluments Clause, and there will have to be some way to address it.”
The full transcript of the segment, which began 39 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s “No Bias, No Bull” program:
CAMPBELL BROWN: Finally -- finally, we are hearing some very strange rumblings about Hillary Clinton. Some conservatives saying she might not be able to serve as Secretary of State because of a clause in the Constitution. What is going on?
DANA MILBANK: You got to love this. A group called Judicial Watch, charter members of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- they were on to Hillary back during the commodity trading days -- now, they say because of Article One in the Constitution says you cannot serve in the position where you got a -- voted for a pay raise while you were in Congress, they’re saying she is constitutionally ineligible. I think the only thing for Hillary to do is just give her $191,000 salary as Secretary of State to Judicial Watch for their extraordinary creativity -- just save everybody the court costs.
BROWN: In all seriousness, Dana, stand by for a second because we had to bring Jeff Toobin in for this one. I couldn’t believe it when I saw the press release today. But I mean, give us a reality check. Should she be in full-on panic mode here?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Well, no. There is actually this clause, and presidents have to had to deal with it in the past. When President Ford nominated William Saxby, who is the senator from Ohio to be attorney general, this issue came up.
BROWN: Uh-huh.
TOOBIN: What they have done is they have arranged for Congress to pass a law reducing the salary, so that there would not be a raise. I mean, they would just do it by a few hundred dollars.
BROWN: Right.
TOOBIN: That’s one way of doing it. Another way of dealing with the problem is simply for Hillary Clinton to take less money. Another way is simply to ignore Judicial Watch, because it’s pretty clear that Judicial Watch doesn’t have the right -- doesn’t have standing to file the lawsuit. But there is this clause in the Constitution -- it’s called the Emoluments Clause, and there will have to be some way to address it. But I think Hillary Clinton is safe -- she is going to be secretary.
BROWN: I mean, this is fascinating because we are -- the Constitution is not something you necessarily want to muck around with.
TOOBIN: Well, you know, and I have read the Constitution many times. This is something I consider my field. I had never noticed this clause before. It’s Article One, Section Six. It’s there. It does appear to be a problem, but you put lawyers to work and there are ways around it.
BROWN: And you would know -- spoken like a true legal scholar. Jeff Toobin for us and Dana Milbank, as always, with the ‘PDB.’ Thanks a lot, guys.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No more creative than...
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:38 ET by Prester John....saying there is separtion of church and state, a "right" to an abortion, allowing local government to take private property and giving it to someone else, abolishing school prayer, establishing racial quotas etc, except that in this case what Judicial Watch is saying is ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUION.
EXACTLY!
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:41 ET by Matthew BalanEXACTLY!
This new world... still confuses me..
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:38 ET by AJBSo, let me see if I have this right. Its perfectly OK to trash and bash the Hillinator if you're a black marxist with no experience running for President, or one that supports same, but its not if you're conservative. OK. My little PC book is getting bigger and bigger.
Let's not let a silly thing
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:48 ET by T-Bone MassLet's not let a silly thing like the Constitution get in the way of the most perfect administration since the beginning of time, now shall we?
CNN employs constitutional ignoramus
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:49 ET by Jack BauerImagine that. A group called "Judicial Watch" is actually an expert on that pesky thing called the Constitution of the United States.
And a guy who is paid to come on CNN and pretend to be an expert on the constitution has no idea about every article.
Easy money huh?
I don't blame Milbank for
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:58 ET by motherbeltI don't blame Milbank for being angry...
How DARE they refer to the Constitution as an obstacle!!
But as Toobin said:
[I]t’s called the Emoluments Clause, and there will have to be some way to address it.”
They act as if this is really going to be a roadblock. Ofocourse a way around it will be found, just like it was for Saxby.
But heaven forbid that Her Royal Clintoness should have to abide by all those little pesky rules and regulations that lesser beings have to put up with!
Constitution or not..
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:05 ET by ScrapironEither we follow the constitution or get rid of it (a liberals dream which would turn into they're nightmare). Hussein O's birth record and Hillary's appointment are constitutional requirements and violating it in either case is another step in destroying the constitution. This will come back to take a bite out of every liberals a**. Remember, they (liberals) are only alive because it's illegal (based on the bible and constitution) to kill them.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
For CNN to keep the
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:08 ET by bigtimerFor CNN to keep the mind-numbing not so bright so called legal expert Toobin, who claims he's studied the Constitution on as their legal expert is comedy anymore at it's best.
Of course Judicial Watch has the standing along with any other person or group to file a suit...
This isn't new news, other posters here, including myself have previously posted about this with our own links...this is not some non-serious issue, the Senate (or Hill) will have to do something about this or some-such, I heard Lawrence Eagleburger this morning on Fox discussing this, he laid out a remedy, which is something they may do, I will look for the link later...(I'm in the middle of a few things)...
Anyway, Dana and Jeffrey really are pathetic, along with the rest of the left hen it comes to the Constitution, including if I may say whether O is qualified to be President according to the Constitution regarding his legal citizenship here....
Once again the Constitution is going to be trampled upon by the left...I am getting rather used to it.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Judical Watch. Watchdog group today - VRWC, the next.
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:22 ET by Gary HallFunny how it works. Good puppy. Bad puppy. Depends on whose butt the puppy is chewin on, doesn't it?
When Judicial Watch goes after a Democrat, they are described as, "Judicial Watch, charter members of the vast right-wing conspiracy,' however when Judicial Watch goes after a Republican, specifically VP Dick Cheney, CNN suddenly sees them as, "A watchdog group that investigates alleged corruption by government officials."
Ref: Cheney, Halliburton face suit- Watchdog group to file suit against vice president and Halliburton over accounting issues.
Suddenly the words conservative and right-wing are gone.
The MSM, and CNN in this case, has a very badly exposed habit of bias here.
The NY Times, and most other outlets are guilty as well. AGENCY FILES SUIT FOR CHENEY PAPERS ON ENERGY POLICY --
Good puppy.
Quick look at NY Times - Google hits:
Mar 19, 2008 ... They are being released in response to a suit brought under the Freedom of Information Act by the conservative group, Judicial Watch.
Bad puppy.
(;~/ Gary
Hi Gary.... Excellent
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 16:06 ET by bigtimerHi Gary....
Excellent points....and I also have noticed it quite often with the msm talking heads over the years when it comes to Judicial Watch, it would be comical if not so maddening with their blatant hypocrisy when if its their bill.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
See, man, it's a vast conspiracy
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:26 ET by Mica the MagnificentDidn't the last 'vast right wing conspiracy' turn out to be a stain on a blue dress?
the Conspiracy was Vast
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:32 ET by Spinningplates2but according to Monica that was the only thing vast. I seem to recall that she said Bill was only half-vast, a little short in the conspiricy department.
no
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:34 ET by AJBIf I remember correctly, her posterior was rather vast too...
As in...
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 18:17 ET by RukusMonica Lewin"holy cow, look at the size of that thing!"...
ski : )
"Bri is with Jesus now, we will meet again, just not right now. We love you Bri!"
Youse guys better watch it....
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 06:08 ET by old croyou could be settin yourself up for a lawsuit....
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/news_collection/awnplus_english/...
Right wing conspiracy?
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:32 ET by ConLosRepublicanosNoI like
how this vast right wing conspiracy is against Hillary Clinton when actually
the left is pretty mad about Hillary being nominated but no it’s the right wing
at it again. The left hates Hillary because during the last 8 year she was in
the middle of the road and never defended them also all the left talks about is
change and Hillary hardly represents change, if not they would have voted for
her. All Obama has done is bring back all the cast from the 90s and hope they
have new ideas, the next 2 years will be fun I can't wait to see Hillary battle
Obama because one her donors is in trouble.
Thats the Hope we need, that's the change we need.
If I want a job at CNN
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:58 ET by mattmIf I want a job at CNN I'll need either a bottle in front of me, or a frontal lobotomy....
Matt, Jack The Whack
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 14:59 ET by Scuba DudeMatt, Jack The Whack Cafferty got a job there doing the exact same thing!!!!
NYT
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:12 ET by rick007If people just look it up they will find out the NYT has been leaking secrets since the Civil war and before.
Shut them down and prosocute them.
Let's all just agree to ignore the Constitution for 4 years, OK?
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:38 ET by SickofLibsArticle, shmarticle. "That's what we have lawyers for."
Spoken like a true constitutional scholar, Toobin. What do those other famous constitutional scholars Obama and Biden have to say about this?
It's a sad day...
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:40 ET by jackie3Now that the news sees the constitution as a road block that is just in their way instead of as law of the land. Which can only get worse because now millions of uneducated and stupid people will hold the same view.
Always remember:
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Constitution?
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:54 ET by ahusserWe don't need no steenkin' constitution.
Judicial watch has no standing to file a lawsuit? Then does 'Not a citizen" Obama have standing to be the prez. Watch for the pretzel logic that allows him to be prez cause no judge is going to say he can't be the president no matter how compelling the evidence.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Let's cut to the chase:
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:44 ET by ckc1227Let's cut to the chase: to liberals, The Constitution is a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
VWRC
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:49 ET by LynnIs the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy taking new members?
Sign me up!
EVERY HOSPITAL IN HAWAII DENIES OBAMA"S BIRTH THERE
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 15:58 ET by allahallahoxenfreehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2141909/posts
GETTING INTERESTING ISN'T IT???????
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS!!!
Here's the certificate...
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 16:10 ET by Georgia7http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
and here http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html is where you can log into the Honolulu newspaper to read his birth announcement.
No offense
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 16:17 ET by allahallahoxenfreeBut do a little research on the issue. Hawaii was issuing Hawaiin Birth Certificates for foreign births at the time, you had up to one year to register your foreign born child as a Hawaiin citizen, similar to Naturalization. HE WOULD NOT BE NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN=INELIGIBLE. Why do you think he only issued that computer generated abstract. Why do you think he has spent $800,000 fighting the release of his Original COLB? because the only signature on it is his mother's attesting to a foreign birth. For God's sake open your eyes and be little skeptical of the media.
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS!!!
The birth certificate you
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 16:31 ET by NL207The birth certificate you show is bogus. It should show a raised seal impression from the issuing authority. Its certificate number is blacked out. Why?
Factcheck is unreliable in the case of Obama. Factcheck is an extension of the Annenberg Foundation, the same source as the Annenberg Challege, which Obama headed. --> Obvious conflict of interest.
A newspaper birth announcement is not legal proof of birth.
The Berg lawsuit against Obama was dismissed, not based on Obama's proof of citizenship, but instead on the argument that Berg had no standing to sue. This is pure chickensh*t.
There are numerous reports that Obama's paternal grand-mother and elder half-sister presently living in Kenya both say that Obama was actually born in Kenya and were present and witnessed this event themselves. There are also reports of a British Colonial Birth Certificate on file in Mombasa for him.
There is no one presently living who has come forward to affirm that they saw Obaam born in Hawaii.
These questions do not even consider the effect Obama's apparent adoption in Indonesia by his step-father, Soetoro, on his citizenship status.
All of the above is readily available via Google.
There are plenty of reasons to question Obama's qualifications to be President.
Interesting, yes. So what?
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 16:11 ET by Mica the MagnificentEven if it is eventually found out that Fidel Castro was the midwife in the Cuban clinic for Mrs. Obama back in 1961, it will not matter.
Try to inform the ignorant masses who supported him that there is a constitutional requirement problem here, and all they will hear is racism.
Hospitals aren't saying anything...
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 19:44 ET by ckc1227No, this guy is SAYING every hospital is denying it. The reality is we don't even know if he called a single one of them, and he hasn't provided any documentation proving he did, and the hospitals aren't coming forward to confirm this either. I can just as easily say I called the Obama campaign, and he showed me the birth certificate himself.
For the record, I think Obama is hiding something, but not because a random guy on the internet says he called every hospital in Hawaii. Due to HIPAA rules, I'm not sure they can answer the question anyway.That's the thing about the internet: people can make up anything.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
I believe it.
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 21:31 ET by allahallahoxenfreeYou do a good job of riding the fence there. That guy has less reason to lie about calling the hospitals than Obama has to hide his birth certificate. That arrogant ass has totally loss the benefit of teh doubt with me. The only person I'm 100% about is me but there are too many things that smell with this whole thing. Hopefully SCOTUS will do its duty.
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS!!!
The problem with Judicial Watchs' argument
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 16:01 ET by Georgia7The problem with Judicial Watchs' argument is that while the target of Article One and the 'voted for pay raise' is that the position Hillary is nominated for, Secretary of State, had its pay increased by Executive Order, via George Bush. There was no vote in the Senate.
Nonetheless, the dems will do what Nixon did with the same problem, cut Hillarys pay by 4700.00 back to a paltry 186,600.00 and call it done.
A vote doesn't matter
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 17:39 ET by c5thenThe clause says nothing about their being a vote.
It says that no one can be appointed to an office if that office was created, or it's pay raised, while they were serving in Congress.
This is one of the big problems with our country now. Even so-called Constitutional experts like Toobin or so-called Constitutional scholars like Obama, don't even know what the document says and are incapable of simple reading comprehension.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Dana Milbank
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 17:23 ET by nandrelliThe "Rubber Turkey Man" strikes again!
Milbank was the guy who made a big stink claiming that when Bush visited the troops (2003 or 2004) in Baghdad on Thankgiving, the turkey he carried was a ceremonial, rubber turkey, not the real thing. This was denied by everyone who was over there (not that it mattered whether it was or wasn't) but Milbank went on about this for about 2 weeks.
That's the mentality of this guy.
He sounds a lot like this guy Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune today, who said that even if 0bama was not a natural-born citizen, that was an outdated requirement that should just be ignored, much like Milbank effectively saying the Emoluments Clause should be ignored.
Anything they (the libs) think is stupid, they feel they have the right to ignore it. And now they are running the country.
Heaven help us (and if that offends the Freedom From Religion people, too bad)!
Typical liberal response.
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 17:34 ET by c5thenWe'll get lawyers to "find a way around it". Let's not actually obey the Constitution and actually adhere to it, let's instead, do what we want and find some wordsmithed reason why we can
The clause actually says:
Notice it says NOTHING about a vote for it or whether their was a voteat all. The reason is immaterial to the clause. The Famous "Saxby fix" was unconstitutional as was the law that allowed Bentson to serve in the cabinet under Clinton.
Just as Obama cannot get around the requirement to be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the office of President, Hillary CANNOT be a cabinet Secretary .
This is turning out to be the only Unconstitutional Andministration in the history of the United States.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
c5.... Amen! "America
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 17:48 ET by bigtimerc5....
Amen!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Right, c5! It says
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 21:00 ET by motherbeltRight, c5! It says nothing about her having voted on the raise or not; only if there was one!
Above, I was not coming out in favor of it, only saying that a way around it would be found. I really need to start using the "sarc" tag...
To these people, the Constitution is only a set of "guiedlines" and a flawed set at that!
I thoroughly agree with your last statement.
Pay Hillary
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 20:56 ET by NorthCoasterPay Hillary what was due to be paid The Secretary of State prior to any increases that Hillary voted on and the issue is moot. Now on to more important issues like, how do you manage Bill?
Bill?
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 06:40 ET by AgnosticBill? The US ambassador to the UN.
More than the salary
Thu, 12/04/2008 - 00:09 ET by nkviking75From Article One Sec. 6
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; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that Hillary would be inelegible until her current Senate term is up in 2013, based on the wording I've highlighted in boldface. Tinkering with the salary would be meaningless.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!