Constitutional issues

[Baker, John]

        The linguistic issue is the meaning of the constitutional
clause:  "No Senator . . . shall, during the Time for which he was
elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the
United States, which . . . the Emoluments whereof shall have been
encreased during such time."  If the emoluments (compensation) was
increased, but then there is a rollback just for the Senator, were the
emoluments "encreased"?  If so, then Hillary cannot accept the office of
Secretary of State.  That's the position alleged by some, including the
fellow I quoted.  On the other hand, I tend to think that there is not
really an "encrease" if the compensation actually received by the
Senator has not gone up, notwithstanding that there may have been an
increase for others who hold that office.


John Baker



-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Wilson Gray
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:14 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Constitutional issues

Wherein lies the linguistic issue? Have I failed to comprehend something
glaringly obvious to others? Well, perhaps The Bell Curve is correct,
after all.

-Wilson

All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
-Mark Twain



On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Constitutional issues
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>        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
>

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

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