Constitutional issues

[Baker, John]

        Um, no.  I posted, but did not write, the quoted material, which
expresses views with which I do not agree.  I did so only for the
linguistic issue - should a Saxbe fix (in which the compensation of the
office of Secretary of State is rolled back, during the period that
Hillary Clinton holds that office, to the level that prevailed when she
became a Senator) be considered consistent with the meaning of the
Eligibility Clause?  That clause provides, "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 encreased during
such time."  Both Democrats and Republicans have used the Saxbe fix in
the past, and while it has current implications for a Clinton
appointment, I don't consider it to be an intrinsically partisan issue.


John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of RonButters at AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:55 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Constitutional issues

It seems pretty clear from this snip that the author (who tellingly
enough speaks of himself with the royal "we") is really just interested
in presenting a political rant to ADS-L disguised as some kind of
lingjuistic issue involving an eccentric and moot interpretation of a
tiny 18th century corner of the United States Constitution. Will
somebody in authority please tell him that he is out of order?

Barak Obama, by the way, is a professor of Constutional Law at one of
the most respected (and relatively conservative) law schools in the
nation. I think he can probably figure out what the deal is on his
Secretary of State's salary, without help from a royalist.

In a message dated 12/8/08 12:00:35 PM, JMB at STRADLEY.COM writes:


> 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.
>




**************
Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites
in one place.  Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&
icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org