It took them a while but the Counsel for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the United States Department of State finally filed a motion to dismiss the case filed by U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (District of Columbia). The case questions HRC’s ineligibility to serve as SoS due to that obscure provision in the Constitution called the “emolument clause,” dug up at one point or another since the 1800's.
In its motion to dismiss filing DOJ states:
“Plaintiff asks this Court to remove Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton from office because he believes that her appointment was unconstitutional. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint points to no action of Secretary Clinton that aggrieves him, nor to any concrete or particularized harm that inures to him from her appointment. His alleged psychic injury from observing what he believes to be a Constitutional violation is clearly insufficient to give him standing. Further, this so-called “injury” is not judicially redressable, as the relief sought by Plaintiff would require the Court to usurp the President’s exclusive removal power. Because Plaintiff lacks standing, his claims should be dismissed.”
[…]
“Even if Plaintiff had standing, moreover, his complaint is without merit. Congress
anticipated the precise potential constitutional issue with Secretary Clinton’s appointment that Plaintiff raises in the lawsuit, and passed a statute with the purpose of remedying any problem. Congress’s statutory solution is hardly novel, having been employed multiple times in the past hundred years to resolve this potential constitutional issue. More importantly, an examination of the clause’s text, purpose, and history leads to the inevitable conclusion that the legislative solution satisfied the purpose of the Ineligibility Clause and ensured Secretary Clinton’s eligibility for appointment.”
The case is being reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, James Robertson and Reggie B. Walton). Under applicable law, any appeal will go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Related Post:
Related Items: (items below hosted in Judicial Watch website)
- Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Dismiss (Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum dated May 20, 2009)
- Exhibit 2 to the Motion to Dismiss (Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum dated August 24, 1987)
- Defendants' Motion To Dismiss -- May 20, 2009
- Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time - April 16, 2009
- Initial Complaint - January 29, 2009
