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.
Only a conservative would think that it's appropriate for POTUS to be profiting off of his/her office and nursing huge conflicts of interest between business interests and policy.
This is because they give lip service to the Constitution but actually just rubber-stamp anything Trump does.
You do know all profits made by foreign governments staying at Trump hotels are donated to the Treasury Department?
You do know that right?
Trump isn't making any money from foreign governments staying at Trump hotels, so this whole idea of this being an emoluments clause violation was always complete nonsense.
It wasn't a problem for George Washington and the following 4 presidents. They all earned profits on their farms while they were POTUS by selling crops to foreign governments, etc.
Misconceptions such as the one ChiGeekGuest and others have shared in this thread are what happens because lefties are so devoid of actual knowledge.
It wasn't a problem for George Washington and the following 4 presidents. They all earned profits on their farms while they were POTUS by selling crops to foreign governments, etc.
Misconceptions such as the one ChiGeekGuest and others have shared in this thread are what happens because lefties are so devoid of actual knowledge.
Do people believe that current-day courts haven’t/won’t consider this argument?
Sorry, but “they did it so I should be able to get away with it” isn’t generally a legal defense.
Most basic example: when everyone is speeding, the one or two cars that get pulled over will get tickets.
““But Washington did it” arguments are not only weak, but in fact, Washington’s effort to keep these dealings quiet at least suggests he understood they were politically, legally, and maybe constitutionally problematic.
...
Our courts do not treat the practices of the Framing generation as dispositive, and especially not the subsequent practices while governing in the early republic.“
A point with eerie parallels:
“...Washington’s land speculation was indeed so shady in terms of insider advantage, political self-dealing, and abuse of his position as president that if it had been publicized at all (and not just a quiet filing of a certificate), his political opponents would have screamed about his corruption.”
If people would just READ the Constitution, it would simplify this discussion...
For instance, take Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7:
"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."
That seems quite simple. The President can not receive an emolument from the United States, or any of the States, beyond the normal compensation.
Yes, there IS another "Emolument Clause" in the Constitution. It is in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8. Note that Article I of the Constitution applies to Congress, and ONLY to Congress. Read Section 1 of Article I. It is very clear.
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.
