Constitutional issues

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

My apologies. I should have read the thread more closely. The linguistic 
question is real enough, but it is so trivial that I hope I will be forgiven for 
thinking that somebody was just using it as an excuse for a political rant on 
ADS-L. As it turns out, someone was just using it as an excuse for a political 
rant somewhere other than on ADS-L. 

I agree that it is not a political issue, but the ranter made it out to be 
something other than trivial in order to find occasion for a ludicrous political 
comment. The alleged Constitutional issue was settled decades (at least) ago.

In a message dated 12/8/08 6:21:52 PM, JMB at STRADLEY.COM writes:


>         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
> 
> 




**************
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