Quote:

---

Enter the Saxbe Fix. As you may imagine, this is not the first time a member of Congress has been asked to take a position in the government, and raises in pay for these positions, while not common, are not rare either. The fix is this: Congress reduces the salary for the position in question to the pre-raise amount. Then, the theory goes, there is no conflict, and no bar to the person taking the position. The name stems from William Saxbe, who Richard Nixon appointed to be Attorney General in 1973. Saxbe was a Senator from Ohio at the time. The fix was devised by the acting Attorney General and passed by Congress. The fix was also used by Howard Taft in 1909, for his Secretary of State Philander Knox (though it was not called, of course, the Saxbe Fix in 1909). The Fix was also used by President Jimmy Carter and President George H.W. Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And I'm sure Judicial Watch, or a simmilar conservative or hard-line constitutional group, sued when Bush I did it....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And I'm sure Judicial Watch, or a simmilar conservative or hard-line constitutional group, sued when Bush I did it....

---

Judicial Watch is a well respected group in legal circles. Its their name that made me sit up and take notice and read their complaint.

As for Bush doing it...that makes no sense.

This is an obscure section of the Constitution that would only apply in very limited circumstances.

If you can name a Bush appointee who was serving in Congress and had voted to increase the pay of the position they were nominated for AND their term had not yet expired...then let me know, otherwise your argument in invalid.

In fact, its just plain silly. Like wondering why George Washington failed to stand up to Islamic Fundamentalism...or why Lincoln had no policy for passanger plane emissions standards...

Edited to add: This might help the discussion: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-compla
int.pdf

Pay attention to para 10 and 11.

Its a fairly straightforward argument. It would require a very simple hearing the establish the facts. But the Court will be hard pressed to twist the meaning to avoid it. It is very clear language and it applies directly to the circumstances.


H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I said Bush I, as in Senior. Herbert Walker variety. Deadlockedvictim's post above mentions it. His Sec. of State was in the same boat. So, again, did the conservatives crying foul now do it then?

---