…he’d appoint Rudy Giuliani so that Rudy wouldn’t run against him in ’10.

I tend to agree with Prof. Volokh over his correspondents, however learned they may be. I do not agree that “shall have been encreased” is totally unambiguous as regards the “fix.” To be increased there must be a measurement of some thing taken at some point against that thing taken at some other point.

As Prof. Volokh points out, if you went to Best Buy and asked them if the TV you’re looking at has increased in price over the past year, you would not be asking if the price at any point in the last year had been higher than it was in Nov. 2007, you’d be asking if the price you were looking at on the tag in front of you was higher than the price was in Nov. 2007.

That doesn’t mean the fix is inherently okay, but it does mean there is room to disagree about what the plain text actually is saying. This is yet another reason to disapprove the use of the passive voice.

There is also of course room to question exactly what the language was meant to do – does an inflation adjustment (resulting in a your “real salary” remaining constant) really affect an “encrease” in the sense this was meant. Did the Founders really deal with and understand the concept of inflation?

In short, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as some might make it out to be, and at the point that it’s not clear cut, it’s a question that each person probably needs to answer himself. I would interpret the provision in a way that would allow the salary decreasing fix to cure the problem.

What is funny in all this is that the issue was even raised by the Kossacks – a bunch of people who are wholly committed to the “living Constitution” that changes with current needs and understandings. If we assume that the Constitution is, in fact, a “living document” can’t we all agree that, whatever the Emoluments Clause meant to the Founders, the point of it all isn’t really called into question here (since Hillary never actually voted on a bill to increase this particular salary)?

If the proper reading of the clause is so strict as the postings would indicate, then I would favor an amendment to the clause to clarify and loosen it. The reality of the modern Executive branch means that we should not be disqualifying members of Congress from being appointed – the boat of “restraining the federal government in relation to the states” has, for the most part, left the station and even appointments of state governors to the Cabinet isn’t going to change that (a change in federal-state relations will require much more than merely changing the list of candidates for Cabinet positions). The executive departments deal with highly specialized areas of federal policy, and on both sides of the aisle, the members of congress who sit on the relevant committees are often going to be among the most knowledgeable and most qualified to handle those areas.

What boggles my mind is that the Clause would seemingly make ridiculous distinctions. Clinton, whose current term as a Senator spans the period during which this increase was effected, would be ineligible; but John Kerry, who has spent more than 20 years in the Senate, would be perfectly acceptable because he happened to get lucky and have his term expire this year (though he will embark on a new one in January) – even if he were directly responsible for the increase.

Besides, does the clause even prevent the “Legislative-Executive” conspiring that it is directed at? Couldn’t a bunch of Senators whose terms expire in 2010 (or any House member) “conspire” with Obama and the House to raise salaries of executive officials and then opt to “retire” from the Senate (or House) with a secret promise from the President to appoint them to one of those cushy jobs as soon as the “term for which they were elected” expires? In other words, is the Clause actually capable of preventing that which it was designed to address?

I say dispatch it to the dustbin to the extent it goes further than requiring a salary to be reset to some historical number (and even then it still seems to be deficient).

I’m originally from that area, and the NY 20th isn’t as red as many people make it out to be. The real red areas of the district, especially Delaware county where I was born, while a conservative area, tend to like moderate politicians. When I was growing up, this was Sherwood Boelhert country, who was very centrist, if not RINO. Gillibrand actually fits the mold fairly well for that area to pull some Republican votes in. They also don’t have many people. The rest of her district, with the exception of Greene county, is getting bluer by the year and went pretty solidly for her and Obama. I think it would take a real solid challenger to take her out here. She is also much stronger than the other main upstate congressmen, and I think she would be more likely to keep her seat than Arcuri or Maffei. The only thing that would hurt her would be if they combined her district with McNulty’s Albany district, which is the only way I see her appointed to that seat.

I find it really hard to believe Patterson would give the seat to her, as much of a good choice as she may be. NY Senate is generally very safe (King may not play well in upstate….there is a difference between a Long Island Republican and and Upstate NY Republican), and giving it to a moderate Blue Dog doesn’t make much sense. I get the strange feeling RFK Jr. is going to get his father’s seat, but that’s really based on nothing.

Andrew Cuomo wants to be Gov where he can call the shots. He doesn’t want to be 1 of a 100 and a junior Senator. He’s young and he will wait. As far as the Kennedys go, I doubt it. Neither has done anything for the Dem Party and neither can run a successful primary. Forget Rep. Gilliband, the phony conservative, she’s too new. Gov. Paterson needs Hispanics and he needs a women, he’ll pick Nydia Velazquez. In the end, it doesn’t matter who the Gov. picks, Rudy Guiliani will beat any Dem. He can fundraise, he is a social liberal (a plus in NY) and he is okay with the unions. If he runs for Gov. or Senate, he will win.

Any Democratic Senator needs to make some inroads upstate. Clinton and Schumer both have, and that’s why they have won rather convincingly in the past. Velazquez won’t play well in places around Binghamton, Rochester or Syracuse. And Patterson isn’t that crazy.

I wouldn’t count on Cuomo either. Dan is correct,he doesn’t have near the political capital or gifts his father had. Now Mario Cuomo for that Senate seat…..that would be interesting.

There is a guy I forgot….that Nassau Executive that challenged Spitzer in the primary. Don;t be surprised if he is shows up again to challenge someone, possibly Patterson in the primary.

Though it has been publically reported that Bloomberg is an independent, unfortunatelly, he is still registered as a republican.

Feel free to look it up

https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us
(Last) Bloomberg – (First) Michael – (County) New York – (BOD) 02/14/1942 – (ZIP) 10075

IM HAPPY TO SEE HER GO BECUSE SHE COULD OF HAD THIS SEAT AS LONG AS SHE WANTS BUT NOW WE HAVE OPTIONS.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT GEORGE PATAKI IS UP TO LATELEY? HAVENT HEARD FROM HIM IN A LONG TIME

PS. CAN ANYBODY HELP ME WITH POSTING FROM A PALM PHONE?