Publié le par frenchpuma

Two days ago, I was absolutely amazed to find such headlines in the American media :

"Is Senator Clinton eligible for Secretary of State ?"
"Clinton's nomination's popular, but is it constitutional ?"
"Clinton's confirmation may spark constitutional battles..."

At first, I thought it was a joke, then I realized they were really serious, and as I was having a look at "Google News", I found dozens of articles on the subject...

So the MSM have been in a hurry to note that Hillary Clinton can’t become Secretary of State, thanks to something called the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Under that clause of Article I, a Member of Congress who has been in office while a pay raise was passed for a federal job may not then be appointed to the job at the higher salary.
Mrs. Clinton was a Senator this January when President Bush passed an executive order increasing the Secretary of State’s pay to $191,300 from $186,600.

And then I told myself : why ? Why are they continuing to attack Hillary, and almost never asking any question about Obama's eligibility to the presidency ?

What is the most important ?
The office of president, or the job of Secretary of State ?
Why making all this stuff about Hillary, and saying nothing about Mister O ?

So I finally conclude it is okay for The One to be born a British subject, then to become an Indonesian citizen, and then to be elected President of the USA, without anybody questioning the "natural born clause" of the Constitution...

So the MSM has been able to find "an emolument clause" in Article I in the US COnstitution... And they use it to scrutinize Hillary, once again...
Can they now read the text a little further, for example Article II,  and find another clause, about who can be elected president ? 

Commenter cet article