History
| The Ineligibility Clause impeded President George Washington's 1793 appointment of William Paterson (left) to replace Thomas Johnson (right) on the United States Supreme Court. | |
| Without regard to the constitutional issue, President Grover Cleveland appointed Matthew Ransom (left) as Ambassador to Mexico and Edward Wolcott (right) chaired a commission appointed by President William McKinley | |
| President William Taft used what is now referred to as the Saxbe Fix to appoint Philander C. Knox as Secretary of State. | |
| President Richard Nixon used the Saxbe Fix to appoint William B. Saxbe as Attorney General. | |
| President Jimmy Carter used the Saxbe Fix to appoint Edmund Muskie as Secretary of State. | |
| President Bill Clinton used the Saxbe Fix to appoint Lloyd Bentsen as Treasury Secretary with the help of out-going President George H. W. Bush. | |
| President Barack Obama appointed three sitting Members of Congress to the Cabinet: Hillary Rodham Clinton (left), Ken Salazar (center) and Hilda Solis (right). Congress passed Saxbe Fixes to make Clinton eligible for appointment as Secretary of State and Salazar as Secretary of the Interior. | |
The Ineligibility Clause has interfered with appointments as far back as 1793. President George Washington attempted to appoint William Paterson to the Supreme Court on February 27, 1793, after the resignation of Associate Justice Thomas Johnson. However, Paterson, who was serving as Governor of New Jersey, had previously been elected to serve a Senate term that would expire at noon on March 4, 1793. Washington withdrew the nomination and withheld it until the afternoon of March 4, when the term for the disqualifying office had expired.
Read more about this topic: Saxbe Fix
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“We may pretend that we’re basically moral people who make mistakes, but the whole of history proves otherwise.”
—Terry Hands (b. 1941)
“Revolutions are the periods of history when individuals count most.”
—Norman Mailer (b. 1923)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)