"Clinton selection could face court challenge"

[4themind]

According to this article in Politco:
Ugh
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Clinton_selection_could_face_court_challenge.html?showall>
"The so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution was designed to prohibit lawmakers from reaping a financial windfall. To allow members to serve, Congress has taken similar actions in the past, including over Richard Nixon's pick of William Saxbe for attorney general and Lloyd Bentsen to serve as Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary.

But Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said Thursday that Congress’ action has never been tested in court, and he says his group is considering litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge her appointment.

“In our view, it is an end-run around the Constitution,” Fitton said. “We are contemplating our next steps.”"

[onehandle]

1. No worries. This won't go anywhere. nt

[onenote]

2. they are likely to have the same "standing" problem as the birth certificate nutjobs

In order to have standing to sue, the plaintiff has to claim to have suffered (or be about to suffer) a concrete and particularlized injury. This means that if the alleged injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people the party doesn't have standing. That would seem to present a problem for these clowns.

[Egalitariat]

3. I disagree with their tactics, but isn't it a little scary to think that nobody

outside of the government has standing to seek enforcement of the Constitution.

So, conceptually, if the government doesn't police itself, nobody else can.

[onenote]

5. Whether one has standing or not will depend on the nature of the constitutional provision at issue

Obviously, there are any number of circumstances in which individuals have standing to bring suits alleging that constitutional violations have occurred. Violations of the First Amendment obviously are a prime example.

However, other provisions do not lend themselves to individual complaints under the constitutionally required standing clause. An interesting discussion of this issue can be found here:

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm

[Geoff R. Casavant]

4. I, for one, welcome judicial review.

This has never been tested by the courts, so its constitutionality has never been determined. Regardless of how the arguments shake out, I would hate to think that any action of Congress was deemed beyond constitutional scrutiny.

[question everything]

6. From the same crowd that "challenged" Obama's citizenship?

Pathetic.

[rvablue]

7. Per Judicial Watch ..... please!.........'nuff said. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

8. Between this and Obama's birth certificate, you'd think our country had no serious problems. nt