• 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!

U.S. Constitution's "emolument clause": Democrats take Trump to court

reinoe said:
We are a nation of laws not feel good hippie dippy bull****. If no laws being broken then why are these attorney generals bring a suit? This is the type of time wasting garbage that Trump opposes and that's why so many people put Trump in office.
Click to expand...

...the emoluments clause is part of the constitution.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....of course you still cling to your gotta "jack up the price". Once again...showing that you cannot comprehend the conflict of interest involved....or at least selectively cannot comprehend it when there is an (R) involved. Typical.
Click to expand...
And you don't understand private business or even civics. Who makes the laws and appropriates the money? Three equal branches of gov't confuses you

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
disneydude said:
If being President was important enough to him than he should divest. Now everything he does is tainted with potential conflicts of interest. I can only imagine the gaskets that you would be blowing if this was Hilary and she owned hotels where foreign dignitaries were staying. The first time one of those countries signed a deal with the US, you would be crying foul (and rightfully so....because it certainly reeks of pay to play)....but of course...that would only matter to you if a Democrat was involved.
Click to expand...
Hillary became a multi millionaire on the public dole yet no outrage? The Clinton Foundation didn't sell influence, did it? Not surprising your double atandard

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
So, to be clear, you are 100% ok with giving a president the ability to use the power of his office for personal profit, because there's no law against it.

And the emoluments clause may not technically apply so its principle becomes something you can ignore.
Click to expand...
Let me know when that happens. Your partisanship has blinded you to reality. Personal profit? Prove it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Is it equivalent to a gift when foreign officials use Trump's businesses over his competitors? What if they do it because Trump is President?

I don't know. There doesn't appear to be any court precedent. I can see it going either way.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with you ~ If they can prove quid pro quo. Overpayments, excessive payments, they may have something. However as two people who have low opinions of The Donald..

Can't we just pause and reflect to ourselves in preponderance; How many legal quagmires does this make for our young president?
 
Nilly said:
Because it's the job of the court to judge if someone has broken the law or not...
Click to expand...

There is no law about a blind trust. It became customary for Presidents to do so, it was not required.
 
Winston said:
I'm inclined to agree with you ~ If they can prove quid pro quo. Overpayments, excessive payments, they may have something. However as two people who have low opinions of The Donald..

Can't we just pause and reflect to ourselves in preponderance; How many legal quagmires does this make for our young president?
Click to expand...

Yes, lets pause and reflect on how many legal dead ends the Democrats have pursued because they haven't been able to accept the results of the election.
 
Deuce said:
...the emoluments clause is part of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Somehow, engaging in commerce has become synonymous with breaking the law to democrats, who knew?

Look, the emoluments clause is about bribery and dual allegiances, I don't see any quid pro quo, I don't think there is any to find.
 
Queue up the next with hunt! The last one is running out of gas!

Hurry!
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yes, lets pause and reflect on how many legal dead ends the Democrats have pursued because they haven't been able to accept the results of the election.
Click to expand...

A multitude of legal problems for Donald Trump is morbidly satisfying to someone who absolutely detests him and his big fat mouth. You may be right. The inflammatory speech lawsuit, the emoluments lawsuit, the obstruction investigation, could all come up empty handed. But, getting ahead of ourselves affords me no luxury of saying, "haha, told you Donald Trump is a scumbag."
 
OpportunityCost said:
Somehow, engaging in commerce has become synonymous with breaking the law to democrats
Click to expand...
When the goal is communism it's important to start somewhere. Criminalizing commerce is as good a first step as any.
 
Winston said:
A multitude of legal problems for Donald Trump is morbidly satisfying to someone who absolutely detests him and his big fat mouth. You may be right. The inflammatory speech lawsuit, the emoluments lawsuit, the obstruction investigation, could all come up empty handed. But, getting ahead of ourselves affords me no luxury of saying, "haha, told you Donald Trump is a scumbag."
Click to expand...

Find me a politician that isn't. Trump's problem is he isn't the type of scumbag you like.
 
"They have a mighty big hurtle to cross, 'standing'." h4 #34
Click to expand...
The violation is of the emoluments clause.
That protects not any one individual, but the entire nation.

The nation is in some sense not a person but an entity.

BUT !!

If ONLY individual persons with standing can enforce Constitutional law, then there are lots of Constitutional enumerations that are unenforceable.

That is an intrinsic absurdity.

And thus we may deduce your argument on "standing" is ill-advised.
What is the "standing" of a traffic court, when a driver charged with speeding makes court appearance?
Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
"Somehow, engaging in commerce has become synonymous with breaking the law to democrats"
Click to expand...
You mean like the self-made $Billionaire, & former liberal Democrat Mayor Mike Bloomberg?
"When the goal is communism it's important to start somewhere. Criminalizing commerce is as good a first step as any." r #61
Click to expand...
Some of our leading academics will tell you pure communism has never been tried on a national scale, though semblances of it seem to work well in family and church sized units.

Experiments like the Soviet, and Fidel's Cuba promoted "equality", despite the flagrant elitism there. Even in impoverished North Korea, the ruthless leaders live lavishly.
KJU shows no signs of starving to death, even if millions of his countrymen have already done so.
 
sear said:
The violation is of the emoluments clause.
That protects not any one individual, but the entire nation.

The nation is in some sense not a person but an entity.

BUT !!

If ONLY individual persons with standing can enforce Constitutional law, then there are lots of Constitutional enumerations that are unenforceable.

That is an intrinsic absurdity.

And thus we may deduce your argument on "standing" is ill-advised.
What is the "standing" of a traffic court, when a driver charged with speeding makes court appearance?

You mean like the self-made $Billionaire, & former liberal Democrat Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

Some of our leading academics will tell you pure communism has never been tried on a national scale, though semblances of it seem to work well in family and church sized units.

Experiments like the Soviet, and Fidel's Cuba promoted "equality", despite the flagrant elitism there. Even in impoverished North Korea, the ruthless leaders live lavishly.
KJU shows no signs of starving to death, even if millions of his countrymen have already done so.
Click to expand...

There are two problems, first is to show harm, meaning having a prima facie case. Second is to show that the accuser can get relief through the courts. Of course, liberal judges have been pretty damned inventive about defining "harm" lately.

Let alone the proof obstacles. But that isn't even the point is it? The point is to be obstacles politically to harm the administration through innuendo.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Find me a politician that isn't. Trump's problem is he isn't the type of scumbag you like.
Click to expand...

The politicians I like aren't scumbags. Tulsi Gabbard for example.
 
Winston said:
The politicians I like aren't scumbags. Tulsi Gabbard for example.
Click to expand...

Do you like Bloomberg? Either Clinton? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? DWS? I am sure there are plenty of leftwing scumbags you DO like.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Do you like Bloomberg? Either Clinton? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? DWS? I am sure there are plenty of leftwing scumbags you DO like.
Click to expand...

I hate all those people. The DNC is arguably the most corrupt, lying, smoke and mirrors outfit of them all. I actually think RNC is more transparent and ethical after the ringer of the Dem. Primary. RNC is more transparent even if I disagree more with them on policy. Kudos for that I suppose.
 
Winston said:
I hate all those people. The DNC is arguably the most corrupt, lying, smoke and mirrors outfit of them all. I actually think RNC is more transparent and ethical after the ringer of the Dem. Primary. RNC is more transparent even if I disagree more with them on policy. Kudos for that I suppose.
Click to expand...

finally something we can agree on. All this hatred is unhealthy and dangerous as we saw yesterday. Too much emphasis is placed on the federal bureaucrats rather than the state and local governments where it truly belongs. Those who feel we elect a King are mistaken. Donald Trump has limited powers that are being ignored when it comes to this issue. The shooter yesterday didn't understand that nor does he like many here understand the true role of the Federal Govt. which truly is to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE Domestic welfare through policies that enable the private sector to prosper.

Hate drives people to do many illegal actions and that hate being fueled by rhetoric and not substance has to stop
 
akyron said:
Queue up the next with hunt! The last one is running out of gas!

Hurry!
Click to expand...

...no that obstruction of justice thing is going to continue for a while.
 
sear said:
The Constitution doesn't split that hair.

One foreign official may stay at a Trump hotel, in the U.S. or any elsewhere. And his associate may stay at a non-Trump hotel across the street.

The Constitution doesn't specify motive.

Simply receiving profit is regarded as violating this Constitutional clause.

Motive is irrelevant.
Merely that it happens is the issue.
Click to expand...

I hope the Constitution knows the difference between a corporation and a privately owned business, because you don't seem to.
 
akyron said:
We already got our answers...many times.
Click to expand...

Specific investigation into obstruction of justice has only recently started, it seems. You really want to reach a conclusion before investigation completes?
 
"There are two problems, first is to show harm, meaning having a prima facie case." OC #64
Click to expand...
Excellent.
Please quote the exact wording of the United States Constitution's prima facie case annex to the emoluments clause.
Thanks.
"Second is to show that the accuser can get relief through the courts." OC
Click to expand...
ARTICLE 2. SECTION 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There you go.
I'm confident "Bribery" addresses the emoluments clause quite handily.
"Of course, liberal judges have been pretty damned inventive about defining "harm" lately.

Let alone the proof obstacles. But that isn't even the point is it? The point is to be obstacles politically to harm the administration through innuendo." OC
Click to expand...
Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Considering the current state of the presidency I'm confident 18th Century prosecutors would have prospects at least as good of gaining a conviction against our CEO.

No other U.S. president comes to my mind that's so flagrantly disregarded these considerations.

VP Cheney is a counter-example I've already cited.

But this is a well-recognized Donald Trump trait. The rules don't apply to him. If you doubt that, just wait until he grabs you by the "pu$$y".

I suspect we should all practice saying: "President Pence".
 
"I hope the Constitution knows the difference between a corporation and a privately owned business, because you don't seem to." M6 #71
Click to expand...
What I've read on this indicates the legal framework of Trump's enterprises show a short and direct route to Donald Trump.

If that's the technicality you're hoping will excuse Trump on this, you might as well start baking a metal file into a cake.
 
sear said:
What I've read on this indicates the legal framework of Trump's enterprises show a short and direct route to Donald Trump.

If that's the technicality you're hoping will excuse Trump on this, you might as well start baking a metal file into a cake.
Click to expand...

Do you know how a corporation works?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom