• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP: Eric Trump Foundation flouts charity standards

iguanaman said:
That would be up to the individual and his values. It is however inconsistent with being a public servant and is at odds with that. There was a reason for our founders outlawed office holders from remuneration by foreign interests and that reason has not changed. If Trump does not sell all his interests in other countries before taking office he will be in violation of the Constitution on day one.
Click to expand...

So scheming to make money isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for the rest of your post, you are mixing up many terms. It is not "remuneration" and it isn't foreign interests, Article I, Section 9 is more specific than that. For example, the Nobel prize is not a violation of the Emoluments Clause
 
AliHajiSheik said:
So scheming to make money isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for the rest of your post, you are mixing up many terms. It is not "remuneration" and it isn't foreign interests, Article I, Section 9 is more specific than that. For example, the Nobel prize is not a violation of the Emoluments Clause
Click to expand...

The Nobel Prize does not represent the interests of any one foreign nation, which is why it doesn't violate the Emoluments Clause. However, if you are an office holder, and making money from companies which reside in particular foreign nations, then you ARE violating the Emoluments Clause. But, if the business is done with transnational corporations, then we have a huge gray area which is not necessarily covered by the Emoluments Clause, and there may or may not be a violation. That would be a situation that our forefathers never envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. If those are the companies Trump is doing business with while president, then he has probably not violated the Emoluments Clause, since transnationals don't have a country. However, that point can be debated. It gets confusing. LOL.
 
vash1012 said:
I will never, ever give to a "Foundation" unless it is extremely transparent and well rated by charity watchdog groups. The Foundation that my hospital runs is essentially another revenue source that funnels money back to the board through property rentals and various fees for service. My City Council has recently been found to be funneling millions in tax money to a "Foundation" that had 1 member with a fake website who paid out tax dollars to her friends and family by making fake business contracts for catering events that never happened and to another foundation for a Park that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Before giving to any charity, you need to do research on it and find out how much of that money actually goes to the people it was intended to help, instead of "overhead". I give to Paralyzed Veterans of America, which meets that standard.
 
danarhea said:
The Nobel Prize does not represent the interests of any one foreign nation, which is why it doesn't violate the Emoluments Clause. However, if you are an office holder, and making money from companies which reside in particular foreign nations, then you ARE violating the Emoluments Clause. But, if the business is done with transnational corporations, then we have a huge gray area which is not necessarily covered by the Emoluments Clause, and there may or may not be a violation. That would be a situation that our forefathers never envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. If those are the companies Trump is doing business with while president, then he has probably not violated the Emoluments Clause, since transnationals don't have a country. However, that point can be debated. It gets confusing. LOL.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you were concerned who purchased any of the Obama books while he was presidents. Looking at the relative net worth of Obama and Trump, Obama would get more impact from the purchase of a caseload of books than Trump would by booking a convention in one of his hotels.
 
washunut said:
I wonder if you were concerned who purchased any of the Obama books while he was presidents. Looking at the relative net worth of Obama and Trump, Obama would get more impact from the purchase of a caseload of books than Trump would by booking a convention in one of his hotels.
Click to expand...

As long as Obama didn't sell his book to "any King, Prince, or foreign State", then there is no violation. If he did, then perhaps he received Congressional approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom