Link to cartoon (have to click back to November 6):
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/opinion/luckovichnov08/

I agree, this is a troublesome piece of the law; at most she probably voted on some general increase, yet it says what it says.

I think the clause is there and someone could legitimately call foul if anyone really believed for a second that Hilary Clinton voted for a pay raise for Secretary of State in exchange for a favor that she would be nominated to that position in the event that Obama won the presidential race.

The text is perfectly clear and she cannot take the office – I agree. But even if she does, is there anyone who really believes that the intent has been violated? That somehow she’s pulled a fast one on us. I don’t think so.

I mean, a clause that prevents the president from promoting a key individual from the legislative branch to the executive branch makes no sense. If both positions were part of the same branch, one could argue about balance of powers.

I think that clearly, whatever the founders intended to prevent, is not in jeopardy of being violated, even if the words are being violated.

Senator-turned-to-Secretary Hillary Clinton will be the undisputed proof that …

“Obama is nothing but “more of the same”!

… and all his campaign rhetorics were just “lies”!

In short, let the Obama and the Dems have their time of day to do whatever they want…

in order for the Dems to self-destruct!

Let the “52″ have the “full taste” of their grapes. Let the “48″ record and emphasize all the follies of the Great One and the ruling Dems,… “ex-post”, not “ex-ante”.

Let them do whatever they want in 2009 and in half way of 2010. By then, half of the 52 will realize the “idiocy” of their decision last November 5, the day when the idiots and dumbs have ruled America.

Let the 42 preserve themselves and wait for their time in 2010 and 2012. At that time, the 48 and half of the 52 will make things RIGHT!

The interpretation has been so narrow as to prohibit a legislator to take a regular state job after leaving office if he/she voted on a pay increase for the job even in the form of granting legislative approval of a union constract setting the wage for a job.

I think the constitutional argument is fabulous. I’m sorry to say that the court has nullified the constitution before when it had a text this clear. See the contracts clause.

I disagree.

The original Constitution is very careful about its words and particulars; one need only read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers to see that to be the truth for the Constitution. For example, Hamilton notes several times how some powers were granted only to the states, or only to the federal government, either explicitly or implicitly by reduction to a contradiction if both were granted a power.

In contrast the Bill of Rights seem not to have been chosen nearly as carefully. Continuing the example, no amendment in the Bill of Rights noted its applicability to the states (and indeed, in Barron v. Baltimore the amendments were deemed inapplicable to the states by virtue of their not mentioning such applicability). Hamilton’s dislike for a bill of rights notwithstanding, I believe we would have been much better off with a far more explicit Bill of Rights if the Constitutional Convention had written them at the same time as they wrote the Constitution. Also, I think few would disagree that the wording of the Bill of Rights is rather more open to interpretation than it ideally should have been (“cruel and unusual”, “unreasonable search”, &c.).

This is a digression from the actual topic at hand, and I’d really rather not distract from the actual topic, but I couldn’t leave this blanket statement uncontested.

While it’s very true that the Framers had a wonderful grasp of the English language, they realize, and what some here don’t realize, is that there is a level of ambiguity in English (and any language) which they knew about and used. Just because you CAN interpret “increased during such time” as irrespective if reversed, doesn’t mean that’s correct meaning.