You asked me that once before. Time on this site is set to UTC or GMT, ya, England but I’m not there.

We are growing so apart in this country, I wouldn’t be surprised if we were headed for another civil war. Only this time it would be to throw off the gov’t. Oh wait a minute. Didn’t we already do that? *sigh*

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2002/inelhall.htm

The link above is an example of what one can easily find on this topic with a simple search. The references to US code may be helpful. But the point is there is likely more at issue than the ineligibility clause itself. Much has occurred since the Constitution was written which may alter the interpretation in the present and render the Judicial Watch case an exercise in futility.

Personally I would find a successful outcome to the suit very satisfying. And even though a case like the lawsuit(s) filed challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President of the United States presented another tantalizing prospect a simple rejection based on standing as viewed by SCOTUS suggests a similar outcome with regard to HRC and the ineligibility clause.

But we can always ‘hope’ for a ‘change’ that would retire the Queen of Cringe.

As a parting note, it is refreshing to receive a trackback that is relevant. Thanks to the Intellectual Redneck for a heads up on this topic.

January 30, 2009 11:46 AM

There were serious questions about the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to serve as secretary of State. The issue arises from a vote held to raise the Secretary of States salary. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for this increase. The Constitution forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the Secretary of State, if the “emoluments,” or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the Senator’s term.