Suppose I said that there is a constitutional practice that dates back to the Nixon Administration that is inconsistent with the practice in the first century of our history and not on four points with the text. Your initial reaction would probably be that this is on shaky ground in the current jurisprudential climate.
Now let me present with the Saxbe Fix, named after Attorney General William Saxbe and dating to 1973. Article I, Section 6 states:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, shall be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall shall have been increased during such time . . .”
The Saxbe Fix is that a member of Congress appointed to an existing civil office for which the salary was increased during that person’s term can serve in that office so long as that person’s salary is the amount that predated the member’s term. In practice, this matter mostly for Senators appointed to the Cabinet due to their longer terms. Examples besides Saxbe include Hillary Clinton in 2009, Lloyd Bentsen in 1993, and Edmund Muskie in 1980.
Would a future Saxbe Fix official survive in office if someone had standing to sue? I’m not sure. The textual provision is pretty clear, and the Saxbe fix is a relatively new innovation (though it was actually done first in 1909 and should really be called the “Knox fix” after Philander Knox).