Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Whether Hillary or some other yahoo is SecState matters not to me (seeing as how we are gonna get a terrible SecState either way) but the fact that Obama, a former lecturer on Constitutional Law, seems willing to ignore the Constitution is troubling, but not surprising in the least.

The section he will ignore wholesale in the appointment of Hillary is the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):

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 increased 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.

In a nutshell this means Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time that person held office in Congress. The pay for the Secretary of State has gone up in the last year that which would prevent Hillary from getting appointed.

But Taft, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all ignored the Constitution. They did it by lowering the pay after the fact. One of the Democrats favorite former KKK member, Robert Byrd, didn’t like this tactic in 1973 and said this:

we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle

But now that its the Democrats in power, and wanting Hillary in the SecState spot it’s all good.

Professor Volokh quoted Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen, author of Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional?, in his post on the subject:

A “fix” can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.

Unless one views the Constitution’s rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but “standards” or “principles” to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

I wouldn’t bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn’t stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution’s actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth. But we don’t know what he thinks about provisions of the Constitution that do not need to be invented, but are actually there in the document.

You think the Democrats will stand firm against this tactic, as they did in 1973?

I highly doubt it seeing how much hypocrisy we have seen come from the left side of the aisle.

Also:

UN embarks on new attempt to criminalize expressions of “defamation of religion”

Ah the UN… ever the politically correct, Islamic country membership dominated nanny of free speech.

The United Nations saw another shred of its tattered dignity stripped away November 24, when a committee of the General Assembly approved what amounts to a direct assault on Western liberal democracy. In an 85-50 vote, with 42 abstaining, the so-called Third Committee adopted a resolution, submitted by a caucus of Islamic nations, to criminalize expressions deemed to be “defamation of religion,” with special concern for Islam. All U.N. member states would be called on to amend their criminal codes accordingly. The measure’s next stop is the General Assembly, where it is expected to win handily, probably in December.

Evidently this was almost identical measure to on adopted last year by the General Assembly. But this one is set to have more teeth, and far more encompassing ramifications when - after it receives the nod from the General Assembly, it moves to the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, scheduled to convene next April in Geneva.

Many legal scholars believe that the decisions of international conferences of this sort can be incorporated into international law, putting them under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Individual nations could not be forced to amend their laws, but they might find Interpol knocking at their doors, serving them extradition requests to hand over their cartoonists and novelists. Stand-up comics and philosophers might find they’re unable to cross international borders for fear of being arrested and remanded for trial in Jordan or Malaysia.

The Geneva conference is planned as a follow-up to the first world conference against racism, which took place in early September 2001 in Durban, South Africa. That meeting did some serious work, but it was memorably upstaged by a parallel gathering of nongovernmental activists, who staged a noisy show of anti-Israel and antisemitic speech-making, rallies and parades, all under U.N. auspices. And, of course, a week later, on September 11, 2001, all hell broke loose.

The years since then have not been kind to the spirit of reconciliation supposedly invoked at Durban. It has been a decade of intense friction between the West and the Muslim world, of invasions and terrorism, of cartoon wars, eavesdropping, beheadings, Guantanamo and intifada. The religious defamation ban is part of an effort by Muslim nations to retake the initiative. The resolution, which is being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, is seen as winning back some of Islam’s lost stature in world opinion and offering some protection to Muslim minorities in increasingly suspicious Western societies. The idea, it seems, is to reduce Western suspicion of Islam by outlawing criticism.

Not content to try to control speech, there’s new and bolder anti-Israel language being sent to Geneva for approval… including accusations against Israel of crimes against humanity, of practicing “a new kind of apartheid” and — apparently for the first time in a formal document — “a form of genocide.” Unless that language is softened, a boycott may be in effect for some western nations. Canada has already refused to attend. France is also boycotting, and Sarkozy is reaching out to other Euro nations to band together in resisting the anti-Israel language.

In the US, Jewish and black representatives are working together to line up support in the administration”.

Saudi Arabia has assumed the middle man role.

Surprisingly, Saudi Arabia is leading its own behind-the-scenes effort, with moderate Arab states, to soften the anti-Israel language and prevent a Western boycott, according to several close U.N. watchers. Saudi King Abdullah is said to view the extreme anti-Israel rhetoric as an Iranian ploy to alienate the West and sabotage the conference. Abdullah favors cooperation with the West, and he fears Iran. That’s why he’s offered his own peace plan, convened an inter-religious dialogue and invited Israeli President Shimon Peres to his recent New York tolerance forum. Abdullah can’t boycott Geneva, but he can work quietly within the Islamic bloc to cut out the worst Israel-bashing. But he needs something to show the folks back home that he is defending the faith. Some diplomats speculate that he might accept a ban with fewer teeth.

Without the western free world, Geneva would be no more than a gathering of the 3rd world countries… and the stakes are high for Europe.

That [boycott] would hurt sub-Saharan Africa, where the Durban process is cherished as a long-delayed acknowledgement of African suffering under colonialism. The prospect of a boycott, then, puts pressure on the Africans to find a way of softening their Muslim allies’ stance.

No one, however, has more to lose than Europe. European leaders view the Durban process as a form of penance for their role in Africa, and they’re anxious to see progress at Geneva.

On the other hand, Europe is home to large and restive Muslim minorities, and the clash of cultures puts tolerance to the test daily. Friction between traditionalist and sometimes militant Muslims and the freewheeling societies of Denmark and the Netherlands has already led to crisis and bloodshed. Legislating absolute protection for religious sensibilities without equal protection for secular, democratic beliefs would tilt the playing field against the European democracies as they struggle to defend their values on their own home turf. But holding firm could undermine Abdullah, arguably the best hope for reconciliation.

As the Muslim population expands, their influence in world body agencies, and state leadership, also grows. Assimilation into their chosen countries by these migrating Muslim communities remains essential… a trend they reject in all too many numbers.

And no one is more aware of the dangers of the national culture divides with their new Muslim population than Euro countries such as the Netherlands and France.

Finally:

Oh joy… While Russian warships were docked in Venezueal, awaiting training exercises with the Venezuelan Navy, we get the word that Russia is planning to help Chavez embark on a nuke energy program.

Uh huh… a country a’wash in oil and it’s profits is focusing on nuke energy. Okay… I suppose it’s possible. But somehow, I don’t get the idea the world will be any more comfortable with Chavez using a peaceful energy program to potentially mask an undercover WMD program than they are with Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

Right along with that “peaceful” nuke energy was $4 billion in Russian weaponry, fighter jets and choppers.

Bad time for the DNC and our President-elect to continue snubbing our Latin American ally, Columbia, over protectionist trade issues, don’t you think?