Arianna is a basket case - can't really figure out why she's a darling of the left except she's become something of an echo chamber unto herself.

Andrew just became so shrill I stopped reading him - perhaps he's chilled a bit, or it's just in comparison he looks good.

And what's odder is Hillary's famed enemies on the right seem to completely indifferent to her presence.

Gotta get back to reading - I think I just figured out my little girls can co-share the presidency until they turn 35 with no term limits, but have to re-read the clause one more time.

IMO the Volokh guy is a sloppy thinker and flat out wrong. The O'Connor analysis was more thoughtful. The O'Connor idea that because it was a cost-of-living increase it's purpose was to avoid a net-decrease and maintain an equal financial benefit was interesting.

But I think both of them miss a point. Volokh makes the assertion that there is no legal distinction between legislative action and executive action taken pursuant to specific legislative authorization. Leaving the accuracy of the assertion aside, I'm still not sure it applies to this situation as Volokh asserts.

The law that caused all this: 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.

As written, an increase in salary doesn't seem to represent a decision by the president. The decision to give the raise was made explicit when the legislation passed; it is assumed granted. The president's authority is limited to acting as a brake to PREVENT the mandated increase from occurring. This is clearly intentional.

If the only authority granted to the president is that of refusal, how can it be said that his actions resulted in the increase? If you accept Volokh's view, we find ourselves in a paradox. This would seem to further support an assertion that the authorizing legislation caused the salary increase - year after year in a predictable fashion - at the time it was enacted. If this is the case, the raise was enacted well prior to Hillary joining the Senate.

Also, to accept the Volokh assertion you end up with an absurd result: no member of the Senate can ever serve an appointed federal position with mandated cost of living raises. Knowing that the legislation is in place, it can be assumed that in any given year all seated members of the Senate would be ineligible to serve in many appointed positions. Unless the clear intent of the clause was to prohibit all sitting Senators from appointed office, the Volokh reading is difficult to sustain.

I really think the argument that Hillary is constitutionally prohibited from serving seems like popycock hidden in fancy language.