Is Clinton Ineligible to Join the Cabinet?

[clownboy]

In his defense, as I understand it the raise to the salary was done by executive order rather than by congressional action. It's largely the appearance of impropiety so early on that bothers me. That, and to be honest, Hillary Clinton herself. I don't think she's the right person for the job.

I was accused several times over the course of the election of wearing Obama blinders, and I always replied that he would be subject to the same scrutiny from me that I give to all politicians should he take the office. That day has come.

[Gilles de Rais]

Fair enough but, like DonQ, i think you're one of those guys that tend to focus on the Constitution and state rights a lot... regardless of logic. Not just this case but others too...

I fully agree that this is a debatable pick at best and it's sad for the guy to waste thinking time and political goodwill on this. However, i saw you said his entire cabinet picks reek? There, i would disagree. It seems to be a pretty solid, good and competent team, overall.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Fair enough but, like DonQ, i think you're one of those guys that tend to focus on the Constitution and state rights a lot... regardless of logic. Not just this case but others too...

I'm definitely guilty of that, and proud of it. In fact, our highest office holders and those who defend this country take an oath to defend that Constitution. The founders made provisions for changing the document, and they set the bar for those changes rather high (but not insurmountable), for good reason. When government goes for the easy fix, the easy change, the workaround - it weakens us all if they are allowed. Little torn corner by torn corner, eventually the document evaporates.

However, i saw you said his entire cabinet picks reek? There, i would disagree. It seems to be a pretty solid, good and competent team, overall.

I may have exaggerated there as I really don't know Susan Rice (but she is WAY too inexperienced for the post) and I like Rahm in the position he's in, but Napalitano? And for Homeland Security, c'mon now, why not just re-appoint Ridge, that's just as useless. Lotsa qualified folks for that post, Janet isn't anywhere close to it. Richardson for Commerce? That's just throwing the man's talents and experience out the window. He'll be gone from the post before two years are out, that's not his skillset and plenty of others who would do a better job. That was just a political consolation prize.

They are all highly competent people I'm sure, but most of them so far are square pegs in round holes. It has the appearance of the political payback, not just with one or two of the appointments, but with all of them so far.

I'm interested to see who he taps for Interior. That's a more important post that most folks realize.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by clownboy

I'm definitely guilty of that, and proud of it. In fact, our highest office holders and those who defend this country take an oath to defend that Constitution. The founders made provisions for changing the document, and they set the bar for those changes rather high (but not insurmountable), for good reason. When government goes for the easy fix, the easy change, the workaround - it weakens us all if they are allowed. Little torn corner by torn corner, eventually the document evaporates.

I wouldn't disagree, except that changing the Constitution seemed to have become night-on-impossible. First, it was never a perfect document. How many amendments there are? 20? Second, things change and the FF could not foresee all. Thus, adapting the document makes sense.

But nobody in the US seems reasonable regarding this.

They are all highly competent people I'm sure, but most of them so far are square pegs in round holes.

I don't know. His economic team and security team were well received, in general. I think the Arizona Gov for Homeland was seen as a tough cookie, able to crack on illegal immigration without being grossly unfair to the Hispanic community. ISn't immigration a big chunk of HS? When i went to the US on a student visa, i dealt with HS... Anti-terrorism doesn't seem like their only, not even their main, job...

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I think people of good will can differ on a technical point of law, that is, whether removing the raise, so there is no raise, cures this impediment or not. I think one has to be pre-inclined to take umbrage to make anything of this.

I'm less certain of Hillary, I'll admit. Might work out, might not.

I agree with you on your first point.

As to Hillary, I see many of the things I dislike about her as a presidential candidate making her a decent, if not perfect, choice for this post. I see her new position as a sort of Presidential enforcer (saying the things the president can't say) on the world stage. I think she has the respect, almost fearful respect, of the worlds leadership. ( I realize under Bush the position was reversed with Rice constantly trying to mend Bush blunders but... )

So, there may be better picks but I don't see this as a bad choice. And as some commentators have mentioned, by pulling her out of the Senate he loses a potential grand stander similar to what McCain was for Bush. In the back of the room hollering, 'I told you so, look at me'.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I wouldn't disagree, except that changing the Constitution seemed to have become night-on-impossible. First, it was never a perfect document. How many amendments there are? 20? Second, things change and the FF could not foresee all. Thus, adapting the document makes sense.

But nobody in the US seems reasonable regarding this.

I agree that there is a real need for minor amendment to the Constitution to add specificity or to change with the times. The document was set up to accomodate that, but the SCOTUS primarily, screwed with the process and invented this "living constitution" crap (which was basically a power grab). That's opened the way for all these rube goldberg extra-constitutional changes.

It's tough under the best conditions to change the document - it's supposed to be that way. That hasn't set well with our instant gratification society.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I don't know. His economic team and security team were well received, in general. I think the Arizona Gov for Homeland was seen as a tough cookie, able to crack on illegal immigration without being grossly unfair to the Hispanic community. ISn't immigration a big chunk of HS? When i went to the US on a student visa, i dealt with HS... Anti-terrorism doesn't seem like their only, not even their main, job...

No, ICE still rules that one. HS is basically a bucket/coordination agency. All the action and data from government security agencies flows through them. It's supposed to facilitate the communications between agencies that historically have been sandboxed and unable, or unwilling, to communicate with one another.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by clownboy

It's tough under the best conditions to change the document.

I understand that and I agree with it, in principle. But, what with the culture wars going on, i doubt you can get the required majorities these days.
And, in the case of this Senator/Cabinet thingy, it seems that DonQ is right: It's a minor provisio to ensure fairness. It could be dealt with differently. As a rule of the ethics policy document most employees sign these days, for example.

No, ICE still rules that one. HS is basically a bucket/coordination agency. All the action and data from government security agencies flows through them. It's supposed to facilitate the communications between agencies that historically have been sandboxed and unable, or unwilling, to communicate with one another.

Sounds like fun