Forbidden Donut

Let's change the world by appointing those involved in the Clinton administration.

What was Hillary's cabinet position again?

To think that a first lady doesn't have influence over a presidency is horribly ignorant.

As for the other person, Geithner, anyone?

hmmm, wall street really liked the pick of Geigthner for Treasury Secretary = promising!

wow i got derailed easily. I like his pick of Hillary as sec of state. She is tough on foreign policy compared to the many dedicated leftists he could have picked.

Wow. No kidding. Any other reason that might have happened. The past couple days looked like a hedge fund panic (end of the day selloff), maybe cause of the auto industry not getting a rescue deal negotiated? I can see picking Treasury Secretary having some effect on investors, but when I checked earlier today it looked like a 40 point increase, not a 500 point increase! I suspect there's more involved in that jump.

Some quick investigation lines up the timing damn near perfectly... weird. That's one hell of a reaction... Does this guy shit gold bricks or something?

Fixed.

eyebleach:

/link is hotter than Alison Stokke

But yeah. That's the pun. *high five*

She's hawt^

That picture is when she was in high school, and 17. She's 18 now though. So its all cool.

16 is legal in Britain smart arse!

/tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

wow she is unstoppably hot

i mean clinton ofcourse

There may be a problem with her receiving the nomination.

article

There is a constitutional issue here (section 6):



So the position's pay was raised while Clinton was in the legislature.

That is a really freaking bizarre clause. Hm. Seems like it would prevent many cabinet choices from being made. You basically can't have any long term senators in your cabinet? What's the point of this clause? 'fraid I don't quite get it.

Huh? Unless I'm reading that entirely wrong, I don't see why it would affect Hillary taking the position.

*Insert joke about how that clause clearly only applies to men*

Seriously though, that clause simply says that no senator or representative can take a newly created position (which this is not) or a position that has received a raise during their current term (which this has not), and if they are appointed to another civil office, they cannot serve in congress simultaneously (which she won't).

And regardless, both of these terms are irrelevant because Hillary will resign from her senate seat long before she is officially appointed to the office (which doesn't happen until January 20).

The way I was reading it, Court, it looks like if you are a senator when the pay was raised for position X, you can't then be appointed to position X. That sounds kind of retarded... but I guess it prevents people from voting to raise the pay to retarded levels and then somehow force themselves to be appointed?



So no senator or representative can be appointed to an office that was created or granted a pay raise during their membership in the senate? Where are you getting the detail about it only mattering if the change was made in the current term? And I thought there WAS a pay increase to cabinet members last year. So I'm going to follow up and ask where you read that there wasn't, since this article says there was, and that reflect what I already thought to be the case.

I think the clause makes sense. It's not about the extremes of raising the pay to retarded levels nor forcing themselves to be appointed to positions; it's just a measure (along with many others) to help ensure an individual doesn't necessarily get to vote on their own pay raise no matter how small the raise or insignificant the post.

The "during the Time for which he was elected" snippit is pretty inline with various other term-based laws such as the senatorial pay raises. Given that precedent and the fact that it would make absolutely no sense at all and would be extremely discriminatory of long-term politicians for absolutely no reason, I've assumed that it is referring to terms (that is one of the reasons we we have them, afterall).

I was under the impression that the cabinet raises were passed in 2006 (she didn't start her current term until 2007), but that was just from memory. After you posed the question, I tried to find some info about it, but I couldn't come up with anything. If you can scrounge up a news article from when the raises were voted on, please let me know.

Yeah, I'm really not sure about this thinger. But I can see the "during the Time for which he was elected" part making sense I guess. Except the capitalization of Time, that is. I was parsing the sentence shitty.

I also tried looking up cabinet pay raise information. Transparent government is transparent... /sleep.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="-_-" border="0" alt="sleep.gif" />

Not a crazy amazing choice or anything but I think she will do a decent job.

I would rather have Bill than Hillary. It would make things so much more interesting.