Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
For those unfamiliar a Emolument is "a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.", however be aware that meanings change over time, and sometimes that can change the intent of some documents from back then.
Anyways. This would seem to me to indicate that since his properties can receive money from federal, and state governments, or even indirectly by their employees, that he really does need to liquidate if he wants to be president. Otherwise he is impeachable day 1. And lets all be honest, that will end poorly for us all most likely.
Article 2section 1 clause 7:
For those unfamiliar a Emolument is "a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.", however be aware that meanings change over time, and sometimes that can change the intent of some documents from back then.
Anyways. This would seem to me to indicate that since his properties can receive money from federal, and state governments, or even indirectly by their employees, that he really does need to liquidate if he wants to be president. Otherwise he is impeachable day 1. And lets all be honest, that will end poorly for us all most likely.
Did the Roosevelt's or Bush's liquidate their assets? Did Jimmy sell his peanut farm?
I dont think president is required to liquidate assets by the constitution.. the burden of proving conflict of interest is on the people. A blind trust and similar actions has always been an action taken to assure the public perceptions of the presidency..... i do believe that since the burden is on the people that a list of business associations foreign and domestic should be open to the public for transparency.
If anything.... those that should liquidate assets to avoid conflict of interest are those in the legislative branch of our government who actually write laws. I dont expect that to happen.... not feasible.
Did the Roosevelt's or Bush's liquidate their assets? Did Jimmy sell his peanut farm?
I think the link above discusses some of that. Putting it into a blind trust worked for them because they had no idea what it all was in. Of the things they kept directly none of them had incomes from the state or federal government. Trump is simply too big of a business brand to manage to do that.
I think the link above discusses some of that. Putting it into a blind trust worked for them because they had no idea what it all was in. Of the things they kept directly none of them had incomes from the state or federal government. Trump is simply too big of a business brand to manage to do that.
From the link:
Quote:
As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 73, the primary purpose of requiring that the President's compensation be fixed in advance of his service was to fortify the independence of the presidency, and thus to reinforce the larger constitutional design of separation of powers. "The Legislature, with a discretionary power over the salary and emoluments of the Chief Executive, could render him as obsequious to their will, as they might think proper to make him. They might in most cases either reduce him by famine, or tempt him by largesses, to surrender at discretion his judgment to their inclinations." For similar separation of powers reasons, Article III, Section 1, provides that federal judges "shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation" although that provision only forbids Congress from diminishing the judges' compensation, not from increasing it. The distinction, as Hamilton noted in The Federalist No. 79, "probably arose from the difference in the duration of the respective offices."
The prohibition on presidential "emoluments" is one of several constitutional provisions addressed to potential conflicts of interest. Further, the Compensation Clause eliminated one possible means of circumventing the requirement that the President's compensation be fixed: without this provision Congress might seek to augment the President's "Compensation" by providing him with (what would purportedly differ) additional "emoluments." Significantly, the prohibition on presidential emoluments also extends to the states. That requirement helps to ensure presidential impartiality among particular members or regions of the Union.
I have never seen where the blind trusts were required. Just politically and ethically the right thing to do.
I have never seen where the blind trusts were required. Just politically and ethically the right thing to do.
Its not that a "blind trust" is required. Its that practically for many that was the only way to meet the requirements. Lets say you own a farm, and its all sold to a corporation, and from there you have no idea. That is OK. But if you have a farm that sells to the state of Florida say, you would have to get away from selling to Florida, or sell the farm, and invest it through...well usually a blind trust.
The problem here? On day 1 he will be in violation. And this allows congress to control him. "Would be a shame if we investigated your hotels". Its a lever on our leadership that we do not need or want. And a MASSIVE distraction from being president. Something we should not tolerate. The impression of corruption alone will leave a stench on our country that will be noted in history books.
I have never seen where the blind trusts were required. Just politically and ethically the right thing to do.
President-elect Trump inherits the power to change White House ethics rules & seems intent on doing so. Even so, the Constitutional ban on accepting payments from foreign governments, & anti-corruption laws against bribery & fraud remain active & enforceable. Although the only way to enforce these laws, when it comes it comes to the President, is impeachment.
Its not that a "blind trust" is required. Its that practically for many that was the only way to meet the requirements. Lets say you own a farm, and its all sold to a corporation, and from there you have no idea. That is OK. But if you have a farm that sells to the state of Florida say, you would have to get away from selling to Florida, or sell the farm, and invest it through...well usually a blind trust.
The problem here? On day 1 he will be in violation. And this allows congress to control him. "Would be a shame if we investigated your hotels". Its a lever on our leadership that we do not need or want. And a MASSIVE distraction from being president. Something we should not tolerate. The impression of corruption alone will leave a stench on our country that will be noted in history books.
I agree with much of what you've said here, & appreciate the straightforward explanation & clarity.
A very large underlying problem is when the President-elect makes claims like this one:
Quote:
"The law’s totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”
— Donald Trump, interview with the New York Times, Nov. 22, 2016
As you noted, something is very definitely 'rotten in Denmark'.
I haven't read the law, but I would think as long as Trump doesn't take any salary or distributions from any of his entities, that would mean he is abiding by the Constitution. The only sticking point would be profits or losses from his pass-through entities. Despite a number flowing to his tax return, would the fact he took no cash distributions from those entities be enough?
I haven't read the law, but I would think as long as Trump doesn't take any salary or distributions from any of his entities, that would mean he is abiding by the Constitution. The only sticking point would be profits or losses from his pass-through entities. Despite a number flowing to his tax return, would the fact he took no cash distributions from those entities be enough?
Anti-nepotism laws are also relevant here & are worth taking into consideration as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
