———————————————————————————————————————
Supreme Court Nominee
May 31, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
President Barack Obama announced his nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court replacing Justice David Souter retiring after twenty years of service.
The nomination is currently under scrutiny with intense speculations on the debate expected to unfold during the Senate confirmation hearing in July 2009. United States Supreme Court is the highest judiciary on land, decisions made by the appointees of the judicial system immensely impact human lives, often leading to a landmark ruling for years to come as evidenced in –
Brown vs. Board of education,
Roe v. Wade and,
The 2000 Presidential election between the former President George W. Bush and the former Vice President Al Gore in recent memory.
President Obama’s message reinforce the relevance —
“A nomination for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is one of the most important decisions a President can make. And the discussions that follow will be among the most important we have as a nation.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s extensive career and personal profile appears to represent the essence of the judicial system requiring excellence in all legal faculties prominently the constitution and the general rule of law governing our society. However, impressive academic and career achievements are never without controversies as infallibility is not in human nature.
Considering the Supreme Court justice has an awesome responsibility to be part of the collective decision-making dilemma, confirmation hearing premised on due diligence and forthright presentation would provide necessary clarifications on many pertinent issues concerning society. Further, transparency in recognition of the challenges confronting the highest court whose decisions are “as stated by the President – serious and consequential” minimizes skepticism among the general mass.
Since political representations substantially influence the process, maintaining objectivity is in the republic’s interest. The elected officials are obligatory primarily to the people in a democracy protected by the constitution and the rule of law. There have been several issues brought to attention regarding the nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. While some of them described as ‘caricature’ routinely experienced by aspirants seeking the highest positions on land, other matter deserve attention and unequivocal response from the nominee.
After careful review of reports and editorials, it is clear that both left and right political factions and various women’s groups desire a position related to the opinion, speech and actions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, given the dynamics of the Supreme Court Justice role in the judicial hearing.
The specific interests in this context are –
1. The conservatives from the right raise the issue about ‘Identity Politics’ in reference to the comment on judicial expertise between a Latina judge and a white male counterpart in light of different life experiences. –
The statement rests on general assumption about distinctive race and lifestyle predicted to impact judgment due to unique background.
In addition, the categorical representation – “A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented – understood, empathized with – only by persons of the same identity.” –
The claim suggests exclusivity in serving a particular segment and alienates the ability of those to relate to an assorted category. Such situation could apply conversely implying the representatives’ inability to deal with groups other than their own.
2. Another contentious matter from the political right is the affirmative action and the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions and the criteria of necessity.
Affirmative action was justified and served well for the people deprived of fair and equal opportunities post civil rights period. In the twenty first century though a milestone reached with the first African American as the 44th President of the United States, it’s far from perfection. Nonetheless, remarkable progress made until date in numerous fields and occupation.
Therefore, the status quo affirmative action is more harmful than being helpful with the race rather than merit based criteria. Besides marginalizing the once majority now diminishing with the steep rise of minorities, the preferential treatment is a setback for the intended minority possessing intellectual equivalence to others in equal settings. Even the genuinely qualifying minority likely perceived as the affirmative action beneficiary.
3. As an appellate judge, upholding a district court’s dismissal of the New Haven, Connecticut fire fighters’ complaint denying them promotions because there were no African Americans upset a large group of the conservative and moderate members in the political party crying foul and condemned as reverse discrimination. Judge Sotomayor quoted to have expressed “Appellate courts where the policy made.”
Reports indicate that Judge Sotomayor not only follows and defends the rule of law but also respects precedence applicable to prior rulings.
Court rulings precedence could serve favorably or otherwise as noted in the world famous 2000 Presidential election declaring the former President George W. Bush, the winner.
Senate hearing must seek response from the nominee to clear the air in the fire fighters case –What would be the ruling without any constraints i.e. free of quotas for the minority group?
Unveiling the political left’s fear and frustration in the absence of any view on bona fide issues such as Roe v. Wade, the Presidential Power given the past eight years excessive use of power, Death Penalty and Gay Rights are few among the priorities in societal matter.
In the Pro-Life vs. Pro-choice, the reports reveal accordingly:
Source: Washington Post and San Jose Mercury News, May 28, 2009.
1. “Judge Sotomayor’s ruling on abortion was on the conservative side. In the ruling, she said the Bush administration had the right to prohibit abortions by overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding, as well as the right to prohibit the groups from speaking out against the restrictions.
In this case, the article noted that Judge Sotomayor was following the court’s precedents, something she might not do if she were on the Supreme Court. “There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy is that she is not only a practitioner of activism, but a defender of it.”
Source: Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, May 28, 2009.
“In her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way abortion-rights groups would have liked:
2. In 2002, Sotomayor rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush’s “Mexico City policy,” which required foreign groups to pledge that they would not support or promote abortion.
Sotomayor spoke for a three-judge panel that upheld the policy as constitutional. The government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so with public funds,” she said.
3. Yet another incident that matter to women’s groups…
Source: Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News May 28, 2009.
Two years ago, Sotomayor joined an appeals court ruling that threw out a challenge to a school district’s policy that required teachers to notify a parent if they knew a girl was pregnant. The court said the teachers had no legal basis for objecting to the policy.”
With respect to overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding for family planning – President Bush’s policy was fortunately overturned by President Obama upon swearing into the office. Nevertheless, the Senate Democrats must pose the question to the nominee in this regard given the incumbent administration’s reversal of the ruling.
President Barack Obama repeatedly pledged to the American electorate on the campaign trail about his pro-choice position and commitment to the constitutional protection granted to women under Roe v. Wade, with an assurance of his Supreme Court nominee reflecting the same.
Meanwhile, during his speech at Notre Dame the President in an effort to strike a chord with the anti-abortion majority approached the controversy through reduction in abortions and exploring adoptions.
Although, abortion is not always the first choice and in most circumstances never a hasty decision by majority of women, all accessible avenues to reduce abortion should be the goal. This must be entertained with the choices made available to every woman entitled to freedom as a human being in a democracy.
There is a correlation between Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s personal background and the conservative ruling in abortion issue with no evidence of her support for Roe v. Wade.
The analysis not directed as a personal attack, the highest court lifetime appointment beckons to scrutinize the possible reason in the coveted pro-choice v. pro-life matter.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s cultural and religious background traditionally favors having children and large families are common. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor having lost her father at an early age deprived from that experience and combined with a medical condition of juvenile diabetes posing greater risks for pregnancy and complications during childbirth probably advised against child bearing. Judge Sotomayor’s personal profile confirms there are no children.
Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the abortion matter as cited above leads to the thought of identifying the situation with ‘richness of her life experience,’ while threatening the core constitutional protection of other women’s choice.
Women’s groups for pro-choice are justifiably concerned and urging that –
“All Americans deserve to know where the next Supreme Court justice stands on Roe v. Wade.”
In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Roe v. Wade was the wedge between the Democrats and Republicans in attracting women’s votes. The trend will continue in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Despite the above facts, Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination is historic enriched with a Hispanic heritage, humble beginning, stunning academic and professional record. Judge Sotomayor being a female justice would enhance the gender deficiency in the nation’s highest court.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation subject to clarifications on all of the above issues would strengthen the American diversity in the United States Supreme Court.
I wish Judge Sonia Sotomayor success in the confirmation hearing.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
California Special Election Results
May 21, 2009
Predictably, the voters declared their verdict. Some are good while others aren’t in the following manner–
Source: Data from San Jose, Mercury News, May 20, 2009 – Thanks
Prop 1 A – Spending cap and temporary tax hikes for two years with a “rainy day” fund – Failed
Yes, (35.5%) 1.1 million votes defeated by NO (64.5%) 2 million votes.
Prop 1 B – Education funding plan – Failed! (Shocking!).
Yes, (39%) 1.2 million votes thrashed by NO (61%) 1.9 million votes.
Prop 1 C – Borrowing against future lottery proceeds – Failed
Yes, (37%) 1.1 million votes rejected by NO (63%) 1.9 million votes.
Prop 1 D – Redirecting funds from children’s services – NO (Desirable result), therefore good outcome. – Yes (36%) 1.1. million and NO (64%) 2 million votes.
Prop 1 E – Diversion of funds from mental health services – NO (Yet another positive result).
Represented by Yes (35%) 1 million and NO (65%) 2 million votes.
Prop 1 F – No raises for elected officials – Passed (Thoughtful decision).
Yes (a whopping 75%) 2.3 million votes and NO (25%) 765,357 votes.
————————————————————————————————-
Perspective:
Prop 1 D, E, F results are welcome and justified.
Prop 1 A and C – Obviously, voters are either confused or caught in the tug o’war between spending cuts and tax hikes opponents respectively. Similarly, 1 C failure attributed to voters’ unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of the crisis.
Prop 1 B – Failure underscores the urgency to fund education, enabling future voters and lawmakers to exercise reasoning faculties within on life choices.
The negative outcome beckons to review the demography objecting the educational funding. In a vigorously competitive global economy, the electorate and the legislators alike discarding educational funding indicative of crisis in the educational system.
It’s a matter of concern when legislators and the electorate prioritize politics over prudence in education and health care.
Recent reports have consistently confirmed the United States’ poor achievements in the International Standardized testing against stellar performance by students from Singapore, Finland, South Korea, China, Japan and India.
Is it the United States’ students fault for lagging behind in the international academic contest?
No, unfortunately the fault lies in the inadequate funding towards K-12 education, community colleges and state universities routinely targeted for political reasons. The public school system is a victim of partisanship prevalent in the state legislature and widespread in the national budget prompting endless debates to defend the programs essential for survival and success in the global economy.
United States as the leader of the free world, economic power and pioneer in many fields is contemplating on investment in education and health care, the two most important aspects of human life. It’s no rocket science to figure out that healthy and educated population are a valuable asset to the economy and national productivity.
Ironically, United States’ sharp criticism against the so-called third world poor literacy rates will be an inevitable reality at home, if the policy makers in the state and federal legislations continue to divert and slash funds from education, the fundamental requirement for productive workforce.
The proof of the pudding visually demonstrated in the famous “Jay Walkers” segment of “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” In one particular episode, a high school student is unaware of the current “President of the United States,” President George W. Bush at that time and, there were many clueless of the current affairs and events in their homeland during that show. Again, students benefit from quality education by teaching professionals with credentials and that’s only possible with sufficient funding to the school systems.
Contrarily, in another instance, an African student from the Ivory Coast, familiar with the economic struggles was well informed in general knowledge and world events.
Another important reason for education to be a top priority is the bridging of the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Whenever legislators eye on education and health care spending cuts, the worst affected population are the lower income and the poorest of all. School districts with poor academic results often eliminated from funding and they are historically located in poor neighborhoods.
Lack of funding leads to bigger class rooms with skeletal teaching staff juggling between teaching and administrative work. In some schools, teaching staff expected to play multiple roles as a counselor, disciplinarian, librarian and an administrator.
Even the innovative, entertaining Hollywood is restricted in assigning simultaneous roles for the lead cast in the movies. Perhaps, these school districts deserve an “Oscar” equivalent for making the most with their host, the teaching staff.
What is severely lacking in the educational system consequently reflected in the decisions made in Sacramento… Washington D.C.?
Critical thinking and creativity are conspicuously missing in the policies and major legislations.
Any recent display of creativity has been paradoxical …for example.
In the past eight years, creativity thrived in the contemporary unprecedented housing, stock market and financial debacles and in national security – the ever controversial Guantanamo Bay, torture, wiretapping, renditions, global insecurity all of the excitement contained in a volcano and pleasantly gifted to the succeeding administration of the President Barack Obama.
Voters on their part have also been creative in more than one respect and that’s exclusive for California with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger representing the golden state in Sacramento and not so long ago President George W. Bush in Washington D.C.
Such representations confirm the thought process in the electorates’ mind while casting ballots in the major elections and legislative matter.
Similarly, the damages are visible in the Propositions 8 (Same Sex Marriage) and 1 B (Educational funding cut) when ideology prevails over logic.
In addition, political and corporate systems benefit from pragmatism against failed applications taught in the basic education, starting as early as pre-school during the cognitive skills development. Curriculum should emphasize and encourage young minds to be visionaries and forward thinkers and help them evolve into swift problem solvers.
How does the educational funding cut affect the poor neighborhood school districts?
Anytime funding is differed and diverted from educational programs, the poor neighborhood schools face shutting down and the venue becomes the fertile ground for gang violence and crime.
When this happens, a sizable youth population fall prey to drugs and violence burdening the jail and prison system. The culmination of such events directly impact the state budget with a substantial diversion from education and health funding and allocation towards criminal justice.
Evidently, the state could avoid the cyclical pattern and invest in education and health care as a rescue scheme to protect future tax payers in the community and national interest.
Poverty and disparity exist as long as failed policies and ideologies persists.
Further, Prop 1A, B and C failure echo the sentiments of partisan politics and special interests, viewed as the nemesis to democratic electoral process and legislative matter.
Funding education and health care is the best strategy for common progress in the state and nation.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
California State Affairs
May 18, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Special Election:
Sacramento is struggling with the fiscal budget crisis and dependent on California voters to help the legislators finalize on the tax hikes and spending cuts through ballot measures scheduled on Tuesday, May 19, 2009.
There are important issues on the ballot awaiting voters’ yah or nay that deserve attention.
Proposition 1 A: Controlling state spending, extending temporary taxes 2 years – Yes (due to status quo).
Hard times teach all a lesson to review, reflect and respond to the situation. In the current crisis – the polarization among the majority and minority with the two-third majority vote compliance creates gridlock in the legislative matter. In addition, the deepening state crisis has little room for negotiations, hence requires prudence in the legislations.
Those in favor of spending cuts justified in their position as long as the cuts are not affecting the vulnerable groups like children, elderly, disabled, mentally ill patients and vital programs such as K-12 and community college education. The possible areas for funds diversion or elimination should be the ones that are no longer valuable in revenue or benefit to the community at large. Often, previous budgets might have funding for a particular project or service that might be redundant and need re-evaluation prompting to either replace or discard, as it may be appropriate.
Temporary tax hikes for two years is a reasonable measure to deal with the economic realities including the credit crunch by the service oriented government sector.
Proposition 1B: Restoring $9 billion owed to schools – a resounding Yes.
As stated earlier in the blogposts titled Balancing California Budget and California Budget Deficiencies on this website, it’s improper to classify funding towards education as ‘spending’ rather than ‘investment.’
K-12 and college education is the foundation for any economy. The work force being the engine of the economy dependent on quality education and training essential to succeed in the highly competitive global economy.
Investment in early education and community college as well as state universities is an absolute priority without exception to eliminate socio-economic disparities contributing the related problems…poverty, disease, crime etc.,ultimately affecting the general economy.
Proposition 1 C: Borrowing $5 billion from future lottery profits – Yes (Based on reality).
Prop. 1A principle applies over here. Borrowing funds in the financial market with severe liquidity crisis is a challenge and any available avenue to salvage the budget deficit is a better strategy.
Proposition 1 D: Diverting the money earmarked for children’s services – Positively NO.
Again, the service adequately qualifies as an ‘investment.’ Children are the future and depriving them from programs benefiting their welfare is counterproductive.
Proposition 1 E: Diverting money from care for mentally ill – NO (Not a viable option).
Despite being immoral to marginalize the feeble for the sake of able, expecting positive outcome from diversion is a misconception.
Proposition 1 F: Denying raises to lawmakers, governor – Unequivocally Yes.
Compromises and sacrifices serve the society well during difficult times particularly when it happens from the top bottom rather than the other way around.
—————————————————————————————————
Budget Deficit Reconciliation:
According to news reports, the budget deficit laid out in two scenarios – Ballot measure approval or failure.
Upon approval the deficit stands at $15.4 billion, contrarily the failure would yield a staggering $21.3 billion through mid 2010 and could get worse if the revenue projections do not correlate with actual earnings around that time.
The estimated total budget for the fiscal year starting in July 2009 is $84 billion.
Obviously, the disproportionate combination of revenue loss and investments/expenses yielded a stalemate.
The economic downturn led to the severe loss in tax revenue directly affecting the funding for various services and programs. Meanwhile, the recipients and beneficiaries of the services remain constant or increased since the last budget.
California confronted by the urgent action to resolve the financial crisis. Government organizations are predominantly service sectors engaged in providing public services to the residents of the state, counties and cities. In such atmosphere, the only and perhaps the major source of income is taxes collected from individuals, corporations, levies, fees and other charges that may be applicable on various items.
When the economy slides rapidly as it has since 2007, it drastically affects the income source via taxes. Unfortunately, the percentage of population receiving the services that typically represents investments/expenses, do not always drop to accommodate the economic decline. If anything, it either remains unchanged or rise gradually increasing the burden on the budget.
It’s human nature to assume false sense of security during economic boom that leads to an ill-prepared situation for inevitable budget crisis. Combined with the common error is the ideology of the legislators who hold the crisis hostage to justify their political means. Regrettably, actions of this nature by ‘Kamikaze’ pilots produce devastating results.
Many compelling reasons provided to vote for the propositions served on the ballots scheduled early next week. Obviously, the importance laid on the opportunity to derive $6 billion borrowing from the future lottery earnings to survive the immediate crisis.
The circumstance is somewhat similar to SOS from the protective-gearless team at the cliff edge requesting the rescue squad (the voters in this case) to assist them in descending the slippery slope with minimal skull and bone injury.
Since the solution to the budget crisis relies on the revenue and spending equation, exploring ways to generate the deficit amount- $21.3 billion urgently needed to resolve the crisis. It appears that a wide area in spending cuts reviewed and essential programs and services streamlined to meet the challenge. Any further measures to divert funds from these sources i.e. Prop 1B, D and E, would exacerbate the crisis in the long run. It’s noteworthy that preventive care is always cost effective than cure.
The best alternative is to examine the revenue path to raise income for the burgeoning problem. No matter how one circumvents the situation, temporarily raising taxes is an irreversible reality and the only guaranteed avenue to salvage the deficit debacle.
1. Sales tax on items purchased via on-line is legitimate and widely applied around the world.
2. Gasoline tax would be appropriate around this time, considering the decrease in oil prices
recently.
3. In the transportation sector – airport tax, port fees, levies, import duty, quota items,
documentation fees and charges are some areas worth revising.
4. Closing state tax-evasion loopholes to derive income is yet another reliable source.
5. Marginal increase in the parking fees at beaches and parks are attention-worthy.
6. Sale/Leasing government buildings to federal agencies and corporations seeking sports
venues would be suitable for income source.
7. Issuing drivers license and allowing all undocumented workers to register their vehicles
would not only generate income for the state, it would also strengthen state and national
security with the documentation of all residents in the state.
Subsequently, acquiring vehicle insurance by the undocumented workers would minimize the burden on registered owners in addition to stimulating the economy through insurance industry.
8. Entertainment tax receipts from the philanthropic entertainment industry would sufficiently
provide for the deficit cut.
9. In the environmental front – cap and trade emission upon legislation should create opportunity for
state income.
10.The state should not discount borrowing from the federal government given the ‘bailout’ season
prevailing in Washington right now.
11. Among the spending cuts – Abolition of death penalty in California and elsewhere would be a groundbreaking rule aside from being earth shattering for the opponents. Besides reflecting the contemporary modern society, it is morally, ethically and financially right on target.
According to legal professionals directly involved in the state criminal justice system, millions of dollars squandered on the perennial appeals and criminal proceedings leaving the inmates on death row for an indefinite period. Instead, life sentence without parole and having them involved in the activities that would pay for their upkeep in the prison is the ideal strategy. Prison systems and jails in the state would benefit from a major transformation in serving as the reform and revenue center rather than a medieval archive and a liability on the taxpayers.
The legislators’ iron will to defend their failed policies and ideologies has contributed to the special election event in California on May 19, 2009. Voters across the state of California must realize that abstinence from voting any time in a democracy is renunciation of personal and constitutional right. The moral equivalence of discarding the exclusive right would be to entrust life in the hands of the lawmakers primarily responsible for the embarrassing fiscal mismanagement.
Desperate times calls for desperate measures and the electorate have an awesome responsibility towards themselves, families and fellow citizens to exercise diligence and cast ballots in saving the golden state from potential bankruptcy.
Special election is a reminder that two-third majority law in budget and other legislation in both state and federal level best replaced by a simple majority rule for democracy to function efficiently.
Californians can only save California on the brink of collapse on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 with an overwhelming majority approval of the Propositions as recommended above.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Keeping Democracy Alive
March 8, 2009
The new administration is still in the process of filling positions and since the beginning, there has been problems with some major cabinet appointments as the nominees had withdrawn from considerations to avoid political challenges during the hearing process.
Lately, it appears to be the nominee CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
It is evidenced in the following article;
Gupta won’t be next surgeon general
Neurosurgeon and TV Correspondent withdraws from Consideration
By Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press – Thank you.
CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta won’t be the next surgeon general, the Obama administration confirmed Thursday.
Gupta 39, a neurosurgeon with star appeal, was seen as President Barack Obama’s first pick for the job. He would have brought instant recognition to the office of surgeon general, a post that has lacked visibility since the days of C. Everett Koop during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
An administration official said that Gupta had been under “serious consideration” but took himself out of the running because he wants to focus on his medical career and spend more time with his family.
“We know he will continue to serve and educate the public through his work with media and in the medical arena,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of nominations.
The official said there were no problems that would have disqualified Gupta, and it was his decision to withdraw.
The surgeon general is the nation’s doctor, and while the job doesn’t involve much policymaking responsibility, it’s a bully pulpit for promoting public health. Gupta could have helped Obama pitch his health care reform plan.
Initial reports in early January that Obama had approached Gupta about the job created a stir. The new president had not yet taken office. The chairman of the American Medical Association’s board said at the time it would be a boon to the government if Gupta accepted.
But Gupta would have had to give up a lucrative career. He hosts “House Call” on CNN, contributes reports to CBS News and writes a column for Time magazine. He also practices surgery at Atlanta’s Grady Memorial Hospital, which sees more than its share of trauma cases.
Political opposition had started to form.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., called Gupta inexperienced and circulated a letter urging Obama not to appoint him. Conyers is a leading supporter of health care reform that would create a government system similar to Canada’s and is particularly influential among liberals.
Gupta does have some Washington experience. During the Clinton administration, he served as a White House fellow and a special adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton.”
———————————————————————————————————————
Washington Hypocrisy:
Strangely enough, with recent appointees for high profile cabinet positions involving decision-making on International crisis affecting billions of lives around the globe “experience” didn’t seem to matter to the members of the hearing committee.
Some were sworn in with a mere formality hearing and they were aptly called by the media a shoe-in appointment.
Also, there was swift approval of nominees considered “controversial” with tax issues, conflict of interest notwithstanding the nation’s critical cabinet post supposedly being “unconstitutional.”
However, an administrative post with none or minimal policymaking responsibility as cited in the above article, aroused skepticism in the minds of certain members prompting them to an all out campaign against the adequately qualified and nationally as well as internationally prominent candidate with White House experience, reveals the true colors of Washington Politics.
Last fall, history was made for a reason. People of the human race overwhelmingly came together to convey a loud and clear message…
It is no longer the “red states” or the “blue states”, but it is the United States of America.
Apparently, like everything else it is being regarded a catchy campaign slogan rather than embracing and most importantly practicing to keep democracy alive.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Conflict of Interest
January 28, 2009
Secretary of State
By Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.
Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?
Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.
—————————————————————————————————-
Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago 01/27/09
WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.
Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.
That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.
In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."
Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.
All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.
The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.
Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.
The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.
For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.
The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.
The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.
$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.
$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.
$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.
$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.
In addition to the foreign earnings,
Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.
————————————————————————————————————-
Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant
I suppose, now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .
The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.
It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.
Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly by the candidates for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle?
Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.
Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,
The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.
History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.
In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.
It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.
Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.
Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.
In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.
Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.
All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.
Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.
Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.
It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.
Then why bother wasting taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?
With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?
Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?
Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.
Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?
Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?
The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.
New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.
Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?
It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.
————————————————————————————————————-
Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ –
Thank you.
Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?
Posted by Ilya Shapiro, Previous: There’s No Change Here
It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination. To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:
Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
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; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml
Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:
There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.
I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995), so I asked him what he thought.
Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:
It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:
(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and
(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.
I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.
The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.
The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o 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.”
As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.
The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.
Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.
I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.
By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.
Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.
It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.
This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.
In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.
The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:
(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and
(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant
It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.
Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.
Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.
Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.
Additionally, rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.
Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?
Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.
Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?
The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com for complete comprehension.
Conflict of Interest
January 28, 2009
Secretary of State
By Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.
Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?
Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.
——————————————————–
Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.
Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.
That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.
In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."
Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.
All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.
The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.
Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.
The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.
For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.
The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.
The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.
$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.
$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.
$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.
$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.
In addition to the foreign earnings,
Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.
Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant
I suppose, now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .
The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.
It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.
Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle by the contestants?
Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.
Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,
The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.
History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.
In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.
It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.
Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.
Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.
In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.
Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.
All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.
Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.
Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.
It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.
Then why bother wasting taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?
With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?
Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?
Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.
Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?
Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?
The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.
New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.
Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?
It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ – Thank you.
Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?
Posted by Ilya Shapiro , Previous: There’s No Change Here
It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination. To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:
Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
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; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml – Thank you.
Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:
There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order , promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.
I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution , 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995) , so I asked him what he thought.
Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:
It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:
(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and
(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.
I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.
The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.
The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o 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.”
As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.
The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.
Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.
I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.
By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.
Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.
It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.
This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.
In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.
The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:
(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and
(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant
It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.
Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.
Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.
Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.
Additionally, rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.
Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?
Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.
Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?
The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com for complete comprehension.
Presidential Inaugural Invitation
January 20, 2009
To: President-elect Barack Obama
Vice President-elect Joe Biden
With great humility and honor, I accept and acknowledge your personal invitation as well as the formal invitation from the Presidential Inaugural Committee to attend the historic 56th Presidential Inauguration currently held in the nation’s capitol, Washington D.C.
I apologize for not being able to participate in the historic event even though I had every desire to be present with millions of citizens excited to share their overwhelming joy and happiness on this important day.
Please trust me; I am with you right from the moment of swearing in to the last event of the day.
I take this opportunity and convey my heartfelt congratulations on your extraordinary feat as the 44th President of the United States on this day January 20, 2009.
Wishing you phenomenal success in all your endeavors.
Best Wishes
Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State Nomination
January 15, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a job interview as the nominee for one of the most important Cabinet positions in the White House Administration.
The hearing as such did not appear to be a formal environment for the hiring and approval of the crucial Cabinet post representing the U.S. Foreign policy requiring reparation and image restoration.
Ironically, Senate committee with members on both sides of the aisle euphoric with the designate, conducted the session in a manner of formality rather than a serious protocol in assessing the eligibility, experience or the lack thereof and particularly the conflict of interest arising from the nominee’s personal and political background.
In the absence of any hard hitting, nail biting moments given the present highly volatile world environment, the hearing as described by the media a love fest … delivered an overwhelming majority of 16-1 vote in favor of the nomination.
Often, when a democratic process subsidized with lack of objectivity poses an imminent threat to the credibility of such hearings. Notwithstanding, the irrelevance of the job criteria involving national and international interests revealed in similar hasty decisions.
Senate performance of this nature legitimately leads to frustration and disappointment of the voters expecting rigorous interrogation of the candidates vying for major representation in matters like foreign policy.
HTTP://WWW.DEMOCRATANDCHRONICLE.COM/ARTICLE/20090115/OPINION04/901150346/1041/OPINION
JANUARY 15, 2009
U.S. SENATE SHOULD BE TOUGHER DURING CABINET CONFIRMATION PROCESS
“Senators must ask hard questions of these nominees and demand that they create an environment of scrupulousness and openness in their departments.
As for Clinton, it’s legitimate to worry that foreign governments will try to use support for former president Bill Clinton’s foundations to curry favor with her.
There are safeguards in place. But are they sufficient? Is accountability what it should be for all the Cabinet posts? The Senate must be tough overseers during these important hearings.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
It is important to examine the genuine concerns across the globe, as Secretary of State is the initial representative and emissary of U.S. foreign policy currently under siege in the devastating crime against humanity with Israel’s determination to wipe Gaza of the map.
Contradictory to Senate Committee view of Senator Clinton’s entitlement to the high profile yet delicate ambassadorial position, the world has a different perspective of Senator Clinton’s nomination that deserves attention.
Prior to proceeding with the thoughts and presentations by various groups both nationally and internationally, it is vital to define the Secretary of State position.
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA – THANK YOU.
The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs.
The Secretary is a member of the President’s Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence.
HISTORY –
Particularly in the early years of the republic, the post was regarded as a natural stepping-stone to the Presidency.
Secretaries of State who later occupied the White House included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan.
FUNCTIONS
The Secretary also serves as a principal adviser to the President in the determination of U.S. foreign policy and,
In recent decades, has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities.
As the highest-ranking member of the cabinet,
The Secretary of State is fourth in line to succeed the Presidency.
Federal law (3 U.S.C. § 20) provides that a presidential resignation must be accomplished by written communication from the President to the Secretary of State. This has occurred once, when President Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 via a letter to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
National and International Radar Image of Senator Hillary Clinton:
Conflict of Interest:
1. “Clinton urged to reveal more on husband’s donors
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer – 47 mins ago – January 13, 2009 – Thank you.
Extract of the article:
WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of state, rejected calls Tuesday for more details about donors to her husband’s foundation, saying she has revealed enough to avoid even the hint of conflicts.
An Associated Press review found that Clinton stepped in at least a half-dozen times on issues involving businesses and others who later gave to the charity.
The AP reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation. The AP obtained three pieces of the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act.
The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests; all said their donations to the Clinton foundation had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s previous work on their issues.
Hillary Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications.
PAETEC’s chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.
Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation — the Clinton Global Initiative — to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday.
The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood’s membership in CGI in September 2007, and when membership fees rose to $20,000 in 2008, the Chesonis foundation paid them in March, Wood said.
PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations.
PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC, he said.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
2. Source: Washington Post Editorials
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802791.html
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; Page A20
If Mr. Obama chooses Ms. Clinton, he’ll get Mr. Clinton — two for the price of one, you might say.
And this is where critics of the Clintons, and even their supporters, have legitimate concerns.
Some of these are backward-looking, regarding the hundreds of millions of dollars that Mr. Clinton has raised for his presidential library and foundation, including from foreign governments, foreign individuals and others with an interest in foreign affairs.
We have long argued that presidents, sitting or retired, should not be permitted to collect this sort of secret cash for their libraries.
The imperative for disclosure is even greater in the case of the Clintons because of Ms. Clinton’s continuing involvement in public life.
Among those reported to have given $1 million or more are Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates; the Saudi royal family gave $10 million.
If Ms. Clinton is to serve as the nation’s chief diplomat, the nation is entitled to know what foreign interests have donated generously to help her husband.
Even more complicated is how the Clintons could pursue their parallel careers if she were to become secretary of state.
Mr. Clinton would have to give up his lucrative foreign speechmaking and deal-brokering.
It is difficult to see how Mr. Clinton’s work with a nongovernmental organization could continue alongside Ms. Clinton’s work for the U.S. government.
When Mr. Clinton exhorted a foreign government to provide funding or cooperation, would he be carrying the implicit support of the U.S. government?
Consider Mr. Clinton’s September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, who has given $130 million to the Clinton foundation.
The two men attended a banquet with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev; within a few days, Mr. Giustra had obtained preliminary agreements for his company to buy into uranium projects controlled by the state-owned uranium agency.
Neither President Obama nor, if it comes to that, Secretary of State Clinton needs headaches like these.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Defiance In Complying With National Interests:
SENATE PANEL BACKS CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jan 15, 12:37 pm ET
“Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee’s top Republican, has proposed that Bill Clinton’s foundation reject any overseas contributions and take other steps to improve transparency.
Clinton rejected Lugar’s ideas, contending that her agreement to publish an annual list of the foundation’s donors and alert ethics officials to potential conflicts of interest already goes above and beyond any ethics regulations.
Bill Clinton’s charity, which financed his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and efforts in dozens of countries to reduce poverty and treat AIDS, has relied on sizable donations from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia.”
——————————————————————————–
OBJECTIVITY:
REASONS WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE BARACK OBAMA’S SECRETARY OF STATE
POSTED BY: TOBY HARNDEN, US EDITOR ,TELEGRAPH, CO. U.K.
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents
Here’s why:
1. A central appeal of Obama’s candidacy was that his election would mark the end of the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush years. Hillary Clinton in such a senior position, along with all the other Clinton retreads, blows that out of the water.
2. Bill Clinton would move, once again, to centre stage. Do you think Obama could control him?
3. Specifically, Bill Clinton’s past and future business dealings abroad and donors to his Foundation could be a huge problem and potential source of scandal.
4. Hillary Clinton proved herself a poor manager during her campaign.
Managing the huge foreign policy bureaucracy is a much bigger task.
5. Would she be a team player? She campaigned extensively for Obama and cannot be criticised for not doing her duty in the general election. But it was her duty as a Democrat and it was in her own interests to do so.
It doesn’t mean she’s suddenly lost all her doubts about Obama.
6. It would create a significant alterative focus of power within the administration but outside the White House – a dangerous combination.
7. No recent Secretary of State has been a realistic prospect for president.Clinton clearly (and understandably) still harbours presidential ambitions.
Everything she does will be calculated on her part with that possibility in mind.
8. There will be many former Clinton aides in senior positions in the Obama administration.
The danger of dual loyalties is obvious.
9. Clinton herself made the argument – accepted by many primary voters – that Obama was not ready to be commander-in-chief but that she was prepared to answer that 3am phone call.
Is there any evidence she’s changed her mind? If she believes she knows best then the chances of her freelancing as Secretary of State become very real.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
SOURCE: HTTP://2PARSE.COM/?P=1433
WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE SECRETARY OF STATE
Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate for Barack Obama to choose as his Secretary of State.
There are a few obvious obstacles to placing Hillary in this position:
• She made a big issue of her disagreements with Obama on foreign policy during the primary campaign, going so far as to call his policies “naive” and “irresponsible.”
•
• Now she would be expected to carry out these policies and not undermine them.
•
• She has her own foreign policy team which she could easily fill the State Department with, starting with Richard Holbrooke;
•
• It would be a fight for Obama to get a significant number of his own foreign policy team at State;
•
• In addition, there is bad blood between the Hillary camp and a number of Obama’s advisors – especially those who worked initially for the Clintons – complicating who could be appointed where and possibly the working relationships.
•
• Given these two above factors, there is a considerable chance that Obama could face a struggle in enacting his foreign policy agenda – and
•
• Clinton and her team of insiders could plausibly mount a bureacratic struggle undermining Obama’s agenda – much as Dick Cheney and his team were able to undermine Colin Powell.
•
• She and her husband have always been surrounded by drama – from Arkansas to the White House to her primary campaign – in stark contrast to the No-Drama-Obama team.
•
• She caused a serious international incident during the primary season causing both our strong allies to criticize her and our enemies to complain to the United Nations;
•
• everyone makes mistakes, but in this instance she seemed to choose to cause this incident to gain political capital – not the best attitude for a potential rival who would be acting as your Secretary of State.
•
• Her husband and his Clinton Foundation make for a huge amount of potential conflicts.
•
• She has often seemed physically uncomfortable with Obama and Obama has often seemed less certain of himself around her.
————————————————————————————————————-
IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY:
WHY THE OBAMA/CLINTON PATH TO MIDEAST PEACE WILL FAIL
Michael Lerner, Thursday, January 15, 2009
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine: a bimonthly Jewish and Interfaith Journal of Politics, Culture and Society. He is chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives ( www.spiritualprogressives.org), author of 11 books and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.
There is little chance peace can be brought to the Middle East unless it is imposed on both Israel and Palestine by the international community.
Calling for an international peace conference and an immediate cease-fire ought to be the first foreign policy priority for the Obama administration.
Instead, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday committed the Obama administration to a path that is certain to fail as it has throughout the past several decades.
She stressed three elements of her position:
— The United States remains committed in its support of Israel, which guarantees that it cannot play the role of "honest, neutral broker of peace."
— The United States restates that it will not negotiate with Hamas until it recognizes Israel (which Hamas has already said it would not do, though it has been willing to negotiate a cease-fire agreement with Israel and announced that it is prepared to negotiate a new agreement that could last for 20 or 30 years).
— The Obama administration will work to bring the two parties together for peace negotiations.
This position is at odds with the views that Obama articulated when he was seeking the Democratic nomination.
At that point, he made clear that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which both pose more serious threats to American interests than Hamas.
The difference, of course, is the Israel lobby to which Obama and Clinton have repeatedly paid obeisance.
That lobby, representing the most hard-line elements in the Jewish world but also tens of millions of Christian Zionists who support the militarist perspective in dealing with Arabs and Palestinians, has insisted as a matter of faith that American politicians promise not to deal with Hamas.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the lobby insisted that the United States not negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Perspective Analysis:
By Padmini Arhant
It is evident from the diverse national and international opinion that Senator Hillary Clinton’s nomination hearing for Secretary of State position carried out with little significance on major issues such as –
Conspicuous conflict of interest,
Nominee’s defiance to recognize the fact,
Projecting autonomy on foreign policy matters proven counterproductive while undermining the stated policy of the incoming administration.
Pursuit of militaristic agenda via smart power dominating peace and diplomacy creates opportunity to question motive.
Senator Hillary Clinton successfully evaded controversial issues with a complimentary response to the committee members and failed to provide solutions or strategies for any on-going crisis, thus proving her lack of experience.
The preliminary victory is predominantly due to excessive lobbying within the Senate by members emphasizing more on material than substance per national telecast of the hearing.
United States is dealing with many crises at home generating a leadership void for international conflicts. The American electorate invested energy, hope and trust in the new administration to avert further catastrophes.
The bipartisanship displayed in the hearing is appreciative though it would serve better during legislation of economic stimulus package or health, energy, education and environment issues.
Anything to benefit the people is always welcome and worth the time and effort.
However, in matters concerning millions of lives and their future around the globe the representative of the United States new government must reflect and possess a track record as the champion of peace, an advocate of non-violence and a trustworthy partner for all nations during international crisis.
Failing that, any attempt to restore and recapture the image it once had is a farfetched dream with remote possibilities of that turning into reality.
Senator Hillary Clinton is impressive in other ways in performing her legislative tasks for her constituents in the great state of New York. The Senator’s career as an attorney is praiseworthy.
Nevertheless, in the appointment of the Secretary of State, Senator Clinton’s existing background associated with,
The Clinton foundation and Clinton Global Initiative,
Recent rhetoric yielding her the reputation as a polarizing figure during the unsuccessful Presidential bid in 2008 as well as.
Being an enthusiastic supporter of military action including nuclear weapons raises serious credibility issue and further jeopardizes the prospects for United States to be a major player in resolving complex international crises.
The future of humanity is best under the guidance and leadership of those seeking peaceful solutions against war and terror.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Communication
January 15, 2009
From: Jill Biden
To: Padmini Arhant
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 10:24:25 AM
Subject: Our partner for change
Padmini —
We’re just 11 days away from the start of an important journey that will move our country in a new direction.
But as we all prepare for that journey, we can’t forget our commitment to help Hillary Clinton retire her campaign debt.
I got to know Hillary on the campaign trail, and I saw firsthand what a vital role she played in Barack’s election. And as our soon-to-be Secretary of State, Senator Clinton is working hard now to help Barack implement policies that will help us meet the global challenges we face.
Will you help us honor our promise and support our friend Hillary Clinton by making a donation of $100 or more today?
During the general election, Hillary was a tireless advocate for Barack, traveling across the country and uniting people in our movement for change.
As a wife and a mother, I know the kind of sacrifice she made as a candidate, an advocate for Barack and Joe, and now as a member of the cabinet. She made those sacrifices because she believed in the change that we all worked so hard for.
Now, we need to help Hillary focus on the challenges that she will face as Secretary of State. You can show your support and make sure the hard-working individuals and small businesses who were a part of Hillary’s campaign effort are paid for their hard work.
Make a donation of $100 or more now to help one of our vital partners for change:
http://donate.barackobama.com/hillary
Thank you for everything,
Jill
—————————————————————————————————
From: Padmini Arhant
To: Jill Biden info@barackobama.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Our partner for change
Dear Jill,
Thank you for your email.
Due to unfortunate circumstances and bad economic situation, it is difficult to make any commitment towards such cause.
Hope you understand the predicament.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response and inability to comply with your request.
Best Regards
Padmini
________________________________________
Voice of Democracy
December 10, 2008
One Big Happy Family!
Only if family politics could be resolved like Washington Politics, then,
It would be Utopia and,
Thanks giving, Christmas and every other religious celebration will eternally be,
This is the Season to be jolly! SHA LA LA LA LA~ LA LA LA LA
Moreover,
No child will be in a foster home and,
There will be no such thing as a single parent regardless of whether one is,
Straight or gay, well that is another completely different saga — What is good for me is not good for you!
It is all in the context of the recent developments following election that deserve attention and action.
The presidential election is over and what an entertainment that was?
Now the nominations for key cabinet positions are in place.
What are interesting about the entire episode of the election are,
The country and the world were primed and prepared for the process of “Change?”
Change we can all believe in!
Somewhat similar to the release or performance of an exciting movie, opera, musical, favorite rock, jazz, classical concert or a comedy show whatever one might be interested in.
We all even had a preview so to speak.
The campaign slogan was…
Change the way Washington functions i.e. eliminate cronyism yielding to corruption and miserable failure in all fronts witnessed and experienced by the nation and the entire world in the past eight years.
If you have missed the last eight years because you have been away or not awake then please refer to the blogpost titled The Republic’s Verdict – Crime against humanity on this website.
If memory serves, the political slogan against the Republican opponents,
Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin was – If elected they will be more of the same meaning Bush/Cheney Empire.
Soon after Halloween, What did democracy do on November 4, 2008?
They were terrified at the mere thought of the nation ruled by a Vampire again,
Oops, that was supposed to be Bush/Cheney Empire.
So, the Red States and the Blue states of the great United States came together and unanimously rejected the possible nightmare and instead made the right choice by electing the,
“Change we can all believe in” at least on that particular day.
The excited audience i.e. the people of the United States who are also the electorate was all ready to view the gala opening of the new administration’s panel in a manner similar to much anticipated…
The Academy Award/Oscar ceremony and waited for the announcement of the nominees names.
Then I received the following email stating,
The nominees are…
From: "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com"
To: Padmini Arhant
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:53:21 AM
Subject: National security announcement from Barack
Padmini —
Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden announced key members of their national security team.
Barack and Joe have asked some of the country’s most experienced leaders on national security, foreign policy, law enforcement, and military matters to come together to renew America’s security and standing in the world.
Watch the video of Barack’s announcement and learn about the national security team.
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady, will serve as Secretary of State.
Secretary Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, will continue to serve in that role.
Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General and a former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, will serve as Attorney General.
Janet Napolitano, Governor and former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, will serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Dr. Susan E. Rice, a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to the Obama for America campaign, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, will serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.
General Jim Jones, USMC (Ret), former Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander of the United States European Command, will serve as National Security Advisor.
Barack’s national security team has been assembled to represent all elements of American power, diplomacy, and leadership that will be vital in overcoming the challenges of the 21st century.
Watch the video of today’s press conference:
http://my.barackobama.com/natsecteam
These appointees will be tasked with strengthening current alliances and forging new ones, protecting our citizens at home, defending against our enemies, and promoting our values and moral leadership throughout the world.
While the challenges they are sure to face will be great, the opportunities to unify our country and our world will be even greater.
With your support, we’ll meet those challenges and opportunities with the hope and optimism that has brought us to this moment of change.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
———————————————————–
Furthermore, the following communication from the Vice President-elect Joe Biden,
On the selection of the particular nominee for the most sensitive cabinet position,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State to represent United States in damage control of the image and reputation that she was equally responsible.
From: Joe Biden
To: Padmini Arhant
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2008 5:39:57 AM
Subject: Our commitment to a friend
Padmini —
President-elect Obama and I have been assembling our team, and we plan to hit the ground running next month.
We want to be ready to go, and that’s why I’m asking you to help us honor an outstanding commitment we made during the election.
Our campaign pledged to help Senator Hillary Clinton — one of the vital members of our team and our future Secretary of State — retire her campaign debt. That’s the money her campaign owes to the vendors across the country that make our political process possible.
Barack and I had the deepest respect for Hillary as an opponent on the campaign trail. Her undeniable intellect, talent, and passion strengthened Barack as a candidate and tested our movement for change.
We welcome Hillary as a partner in our administration, and I hope you will show your support by helping Barack fulfill our campaign promise.
Will you make a contribution of $100 or more now to retire Hillary’s campaign debt?
I saw your generosity and commitment to this team throughout the election, and I know we can do it.
In the general election, Hillary was one of our strongest advocates. She traveled the country and did more than 70 events, raising money and bringing new supporters into our campaign.
As Secretary of State, she will be indispensable in furthering Barack’s agenda for change.
Let’s welcome Hillary to the team and thank her for her efforts in support of our campaign by helping to retire her debt to the hard-working individuals and small businesses that were a part of the election:
https://donate.barackobama.com/hillary
Your support and generosity got us this far, and I know I can count on it now.
Thank you,
Joe
——————————————————
My response to the Vice President-elect Joe Biden:
From: Padmini Arhant
To: info@barackobama.com
Subject: Re: Our commitment to a friend
Hon. Vice President-elect Joe Biden,
Thank you for the update.
Please accept my apologies for the delayed response.
As always, I will present my thoughts and views in this matter through my blogpost on the website www.padminiarhant.com.
Meanwhile, I wish you and the President-elect Barack Obama success in all the tasks ahead of the new administration.
Best Regards
Padmini Arhant
———————————————————————————
Reaction: Shock and Awe!
There is more excitement in terms of the nominees recruiting their own staff members.
Again, not long ago Professor Samantha Power, the foreign policy advisor to Obama campaign resigned amidst tough Primary battle in March 2008, after the following comment:
“Hillary Clinton is a monster who will stoop to anything to get what she wants.”
It was certainly not a Freudian slip.
Now, none other than Senator Hillary Clinton rehires Professor Power in the transition team.
It is an amazing unification of souls in utter reverence for one another despite past turbulence in the love-hate relationship.
Is it believable? One’s guess is as good as others are.
————————————————————————————-
Comparative Review:
The national security team geared up for the challenges created by the incumbent administration – Bush/Cheney Empire, resonates the dictum of the administrators they are in cohort with.
For instance,
War over Peace – Having conscientiously voted for Iraq war as the member of the Senate Committee for Armed Services and,
Thereby approving the death penalty of brave young men and women in our armed forces and millions of innocent civilians in Iraq including members of the International peacekeeping force.
Blatant threats over diplomacy i.e. Obliterate Iran with Nuclear Weapons.
Default on timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq on the pretext of national security when,
In fact, the reason is to maintain and mobilize the lucrative arms race and now even the nuclear weapons for the Defense industry.
Ironically, the entire team is from the twentieth century establishment that pursues the personal goal…
Claiming Power to dominate the world with belligerent policy and malevolent philosophy that has exacerbated terror and horror in the present world environment.
The portfolio assigned to the individuals in the national security team is oxymoron to their personal profile and voting record.
What is next?
Gov. Sarah Palin as the environment czar?
The appointments suggest the strategy – “I dare you to defy me” appears to be prevalent in the reverse manner.
Who is in control of who is the impending issue of concern for democracy?
As if, this nation is devoid of eligible candidates for all of the above positions with sincere commitment towards the nation and democracy rather than narcissistic aspirations.
Politics is never without bargains as witnessed in the latest Illinois Gov.Rod Blagojevich scandal.
Negotiations like “What is in it for me?” as opposed to how can I make a difference in the world by doing what is good for the country and the entire world.
That would be music to ears.
Something the great former President John F. Kennedy taught his fellow compatriots and citizens of the world.
“Ask not what the country can do for you; Ask what you can do for the country.”
When a new beginning is promised and then broken upon securing power or political capital, to symbolize “Politics as usual”, then the frustration, anger and disappointment is justified among the electorate delivering their power to the elected officials.
——————————————————————–
Evidence:
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292 -Thank you.
Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson – Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET
Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil.
He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.
Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.
Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy.
But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed.
As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.
Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect.
The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
“There don’t seem to be any liberals in Obama’s cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com.
“What does all of this mean for Obama’s policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”
“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn’t seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues.
“Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we’re not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”
This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.
Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates.
It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.
“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor.
If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org.
“The president-elect wouldn’t be president-elect without labor."
During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies.
The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one.
Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.
“It’s complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn’t even taken office yet so it’s a little hasty to be criticizing him.
On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”
That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire.
There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama — and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.
Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying,
“Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes – even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations – is bad for the economy.”
Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.
“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said.
“The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”
Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.
Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.
“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation?
Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don’t yet know what the best approach is going to be.”
On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”
Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.
“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you’ll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,”
Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.
The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.
“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”
“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added.
“We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”
Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran.
“But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I’m willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.
Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”
But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”
————————————————————–
Significance of the Magna Carta to U.S. Constitution:
Let us reflect on the prominent Magna Carta as it has great relevance to the events since the dawn of the twenty first century i.e. Year 2000 – 2008 /up until now.
Courtesy: Wikipedia.org – Thank you.
Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter, literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin.
Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (mainly of his barons), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law.
It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.
Magna Carta was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world.
Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges.
It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law.
In practice, Magna Carta mostly did not limit the power of the King in the Middle Ages;[citation needed] by the time of the English Civil War,
However, it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.
—————————————————————-
BACKGROUND
After the Norman conquest of England in 1066 and advances in the 12th century, the English King had by 1199 become a powerful and influential monarch in Europe.
But after King John of England was crowned in the early 13th century, a series of failures at home and abroad, combined with perceived abuses of the king’s power, led the English barons to revolt and attempt to restrain what the king could legally do.
———————————————–
SYMBOL AND PRACTICE
Magna Carta is often a symbol for the first time the citizens of England were granted rights against an absolute king.
————————————————————
AMERICA
The document is also honored in America, where it is an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The United States has contributed the Runnymede Memorial and Lincoln Cathedral offers a Magna Carta Week.[11]
————————————————————————-
Food for Thoughts:
As stated earlier, the nation and the world is tired and bogged down from the devious modus operandi of the demagogues for centuries now more relevantly in the past eight years.
These stalwarts launch their figureheads continually and successfully to oppress and suppress the possibility of peace, progress and prosperity for all to protect self-interest and those selective few in agreement with their accord.
Thus, making a mockery of the highest office on land i.e. The Presidency of the United States and democracy defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
So, in a concerted effort the nation decided to move forward by electing a leader of the nation,
As the world’s superpower to bring about the real Change…
A complete transformation of anything and everything resembling the current administration responsible for chaos and catastrophe at home and abroad.
In return, the electorate is handed a dish whipped with the same ingredients at an alarming proportion and guaranteed different results upon tasting.
So, naturally it is delectable to the taste buds of those immune to the familiar taste otherwise the status quo.
Another important factor to focus upon is;
It is apparent from the Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s email that Senator Hillary Clinton successfully negotiated with the Obama-Biden administration to make a commitment with,
A. A key cabinet position such as Secretary of State to gain on-the job training and experience in foreign policy, the primary reason for her to lose the democratic nomination.
Thereby, strengthening her attempts in 2012.
B. Assistance in eliminating her political campaign debt, despite the combined income of the Clintons’ reported as $109 million in their tax return.
——————————————————————
Source: Chicago Sun-Times – Thank you.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/clinton_releases_income_tax_re.html
“Clinton releases income tax returns for 2000-2006 show $109 million gross income.
By Lynn Sweet on April 4, 2008 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)
Sen. HIllary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) released tax returns for the years 2000-2006 on Friday afternoon. LINK
Disclosure of these returns has been an issue of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
The Clintons had previously released returns for the years President Clinton was in public life, in the White House and Washington.
But the big interest is in the years since he left and reaped millions of dollars once back in private life.”
—————————————————————————————–
Commitments from the Obama-Biden administration in return for campaigning rendered as a favor rather than a duty and obligation to,
The political party the Senator represents in the United States Senate and,
The nation all elected officials pledge to serve at all times.
———————————————————————
The article by Ellen Goodman, a columnist for The Boston Globe in the Mercury News, Friday, December 5, 2008 – Thank you.
Excerpt from the article "In Clinton’s newest role, women’s rights to go global"
Huge Challenges:
“Still the new secretary of state will be operating in a world in which three-fifths, of the world’s poorest people are women and girls.
Seventy percent of the children not in school are girls.
Half a million women die every year in childbirth.
One in three women will suffer from the pandemic of violence – rape, honor killings, genital mutilation.
But only 16 percent of legislators are women, and less than 3 percent of the people at the table when peace treaties are signed are female.”
——————————————————————————————————–
Analysis:
The highlighted tragedies are precisely the chilling facts and results of the on-going Iraq and Afghanistan war as well as in most civil wars in Africa.
According to human rights organizations and United nations refugee commission, women and children are the most vulnerable victims besides being major casualties during and aftermath of any war around the world.
What did Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton do as a legislator and a member of the Senate Committee for Arme d Services with privileges and complete access to information to prevent a war?
Senator Hillary Clinton did exactly the opposite.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record as the former First Lady, Senator and the Presidential candidate in 2008 reverberates rhetoric in complete coherence with the Bush administration for the urgency to declare war over peace and diplomacy at every possible opportunity.
Why did Senator Hillary Clinton willfully squander the privilege to be part of history making as one of the few females at the table to sign the peace treaty rather than amplifying the war message of the Bush administration?
Because Old habits die hard.
—————————————————————————————-
Confirmation of — Hillary Clinton on Military Policy
Stephen Zunes | December 12, 2007
EDITOR: EMILY SCHWARTZ GRECO, Foreign Policy In Focus
w ww.fpif.org
While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
Her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration.
Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration.
Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.
For example, rather than challenge President George W. Bush’s dramatic increases in military spending,
Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years.
At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a “peace dividend” resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union.
Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.
——————————————————————-
Conclusion:
After reviewing the above facts, should it be a surprise that,
The Republican representatives from top to bottom of the hierarchy were jubilant at the announcement of the National Security team of the new administration?
Whatever happened to the selection process on meritocracy?
What about the commitment to the people representing democracy?
Why should the commitment to establishment supersede the one with the people?
The Campaign pledge was to eliminate cronyism, nepotism, symbolism and pave way for new kind of politics in Washington representing the true American democracy and not dynasty.
With all due respect, unfortunately the present team of appointees all around have bargained the positions in exchange for rallying during election.
Even though the pledge of support was visible only after confirmation of the Presidential candidate as the absolute winner in November 2008.
Unlike, millions of ordinary citizens across the nation who selflessly contributed their time and money to enable democracy…
"Hope and Change", prevail on November 4, 2008.
In the land of Republic, the power lies with the people.
History is testimony to the fact that whenever the will of the people is denied and the trust violated,
It is the sign of democracy under siege.
Hope and Change was certainly the desire of all those exhausted with,
“The Politics as usual.”
Hope becomes reality
and
Change is inevitable only,
When one fulfills promises and commitments to the people of the Republic and not the power and establishment standing in way of peace, progress and prosperity for all.
After all, in a democracy one has to return to the electoral process to retain power and
Wisdom confirms the element of truth – Trust and Goodwill are not negotiable assets.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant