H.D.S. Greenway has a good op-ed piece in this morning's Globe about Hillary Clinton's prospects of success as Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, Jack Balkin makes the argument that there is a Constitutional hurdle to Hillary's taking the job. (I'm placing the whole text of his post here because the hyperlink to this post on Balkinization is broken.)
Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2006. A January 2008
executive order
pursuant to a general cost of living adjustment statute increased the
Secretary of State's salary (along with many other federal offices).
January 2008 falls within the term for which Senator Clinton was
elected. Her appointment to Secretary of State would also be during the
time for which she was elected. The Secretary of State is a civil
office under the Authority of the United States.
The Emoluments Clause (or Ineligibility Clause), Article I, § 6, cl. 2 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 . . . .
Madison's notes on the provision (June 23, 1787) are here. They do nothing to help Senator Clinton's cause.If
Clinton's term had ended before her appointment as Secretary of State,
there would be no problem. If the COLA had occurred during her first
term (from 2000 to 2006) there would also be no problem. See the
discussion in this OLC memo.
Similarly, if Senator Clinton were appointed to a position created
after 2012, when her term expires, there would be no problem. See this OLC memo. And finally, there might not be a problem if no particular salary had been assigned to the office. See this OLC memo.There
remains the question of whether Congress could simply reduce the salary
of the Secretary of State to pre-2006 levels. This is the so-called "Saxbe Fix."The
Saxbe Fix has been tried before. The question is whether it should
continue as a precedent when it is not consistent with the
constitutional text. On this question, see the discussions here, and here.My
current view is that the fix doesn't work. The text says "shall have
been encreased during such time [for which the Senator was elected],"
which would seem to include cases where the salary was increased and
then decreased during the Senator's term of office. The Saxbe Fix would
work if the text had said "shall have had a net increase at the time of
appointment." The purpose of the Clause is to prevent legislative
corruption and the multiplication of new offices as sinecures or golden
parachutes. The proposed Clinton appointment doesn't seem to violate
the purposes of the Clause, but it does violate the text. So it isn't
constitutional, even with the Saxbe Fix. I am willing to be convinced
otherwise. But I am not there yet.