• 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!

What is the emolument clause?

humbolt said:
Somewhere along the way there's that nasty thing called profit. I'm pretty sure that most people worried about this are wondering where the profit, if any, is going. If any of it ever ends up in a Trump pocket, they'll howl. Naturally, applying the same standard to Hillary Clinton was not to be tolerated, even though one could quite reasonably question exactly how the Clintons went from dead broke leaving the WH to being worth over $100 million in a little over a decade.
Click to expand...

Cattle futures. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
Are they from princes and kings?
Click to expand...

Any dealings with Chinese businesses, and many Russian businesses, and any diplomats or government representatives from any country would be with a foreign state.
Specifically for his hotel, any government employee from any foreign country would be representing a foreign state.
 
pinqy said:
Any dealings with Chinese businesses, and many Russian businesses, and any diplomats or government representatives from any country would be with a foreign state.
Specifically for his hotel, any government employee from any foreign country would be representing a foreign state.
Click to expand...

Well, we'll see, won't we. I guess if people want to lynch the guy because he isn't homeless, the HR can cause distraction.
 
MaggieD said:
Here's that pesky thing Trumps enemies keep referring to...



Please explain how the POTUS is violating this clause.
Click to expand...

I am going to give you the real answer, which is not the one most people want: No one knows exactly what would be considered an emolument for purposes of the constitution. Until a case makes its way through the court system, there is no clarity. It is possible that Trump could be considered in violation, but it is possible he would not be. It is also possible that the courts won't actually rule and do something like say those suing do not have standing. Any one who gives you a definite answer are unreliable in this case. They are explaining mostly what they want to be true, not what is.

And Maggie dear: Americans are never the enemy. They are at most the opposition. Maybe if we stop using such over the top rhetoric about each other, we can find more common ground...
 
Redress said:
I am going to give you the real answer, which is not the one most people want: No one knows exactly what would be considered an emolument for purposes of the constitution. Until a case makes its way through the court system, there is no clarity. It is possible that Trump could be considered in violation, but it is possible he would not be. It is also possible that the courts won't actually rule and do something like say those suing do not have standing. Any one who gives you a definite answer are unreliable in this case. They are explaining mostly what they want to be true, not what is.

And Maggie dear: Americans are never the enemy. They are at most the opposition. Maybe if we stop using such over the top rhetoric about each other, we can find more common ground...
Click to expand...

I like opposition a lot. My new word. Good advice.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, we'll see, won't we. I guess if people want to lynch the guy because he isn't homeless, the HR can cause distraction.
Click to expand...

Who forced him to run for president?
 
Cigar said:
The question I always leave for my Conservative friends is ... "What if President Obama did the EXACT SAME THING?", would you still be Ok with it? ;)

That usually gets a different subject started ... :lamo
Click to expand...

The Left would have been cheering for the fact that Pres. Obama was bringing business to the US and bragging about how under his admin., he personally brought in more foreign money into the US than any other President in history.
 
pinqy said:
Any dealings with Chinese businesses, and many Russian businesses, and any diplomats or government representatives from any country would be with a foreign state.
Specifically for his hotel, any government employee from any foreign country would be representing a foreign state.
Click to expand...

Can we be sure a head of state never bought Obama's book?

What should we do if we do find out one did?
 
MaggieD said:
Here's that pesky thing Trumps enemies keep referring to...



Please explain how the POTUS is violating this clause.
Click to expand...

IDK, the issue is do/can any such transactions influence US policies, can an official become corrupt from them. I'm actually having a change of heart on whether Trump should release his tax returns to the public and/or disclose his financial entanglements (if any) with foreign countries/banks/governments. The guy has a lot of debt and lenders usually hold the reigns.
 
MaggieD said:
I like opposition a lot. My new word. Good advice.
Click to expand...

Redress is right.

It was Obama that referred to his opponents as the enemy. Trump has never done that. That was a change for the better.
 
MaggieD said:
Here's the upshot of CREW's opinion...



Thanks for the link, but I sure don't see how this shows a violation of that clause.
Click to expand...

Lets go with just the winter white house

As he is the at least part owner of that resort, when foreign heads of state stay at the hotel, they are indirectly giving Trump profit for it. As emolument by definition means profit, he is breaking that clause through the staying at the resort and having foreign leaders stay at the resort at the same time.

His other business would be ok as long as Trump or his family are not made aware of such stays or purchases.

Nothing will come from it, but from a realistic standpoint foreign governments/ leaders should be during Trumps time in office be prohibited from doing business with Trump owned/managed/associated business's
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Lets go with just the winter white house

As he is the at least part owner of that resort, when foreign heads of state stay at the hotel, they are indirectly giving Trump profit for it. As emolument by definition means profit, he is breaking that clause through the staying at the resort and having foreign leaders stay at the resort at the same time.

His other business would be ok as long as Trump or his family are not made aware of such stays or purchases.

Nothing will come from it, but from a realistic standpoint foreign governments/ leaders should be during Trumps time in office be prohibited from doing business with Trump owned/managed/associated business's
Click to expand...

How do you know they will be charged anything?
 
Redress said:
I am going to give you the real answer, which is not the one most people want: No one knows exactly what would be considered an emolument for purposes of the constitution. Until a case makes its way through the court system, there is no clarity. It is possible that Trump could be considered in violation, but it is possible he would not be. It is also possible that the courts won't actually rule and do something like say those suing do not have standing. Any one who gives you a definite answer are unreliable in this case. They are explaining mostly what they want to be true, not what is.

And Maggie dear: Americans are never the enemy. They are at most the opposition. Maybe if we stop using such over the top rhetoric about each other, we can find more common ground...
Click to expand...

I dunno, President Asshole seems to have no problem referring to other Americans as "enemies."
 
Mason66 said:
How do you know they will be charged anything?
Click to expand...

I don't, but the Secret service is being charged rental for a floor in the Trump Tower used to provide security for the first family. I expect foreign countries also have laws stating they can not accept gifts from foreign leaders as well so they would have to pay for services rendered
 
Mason66 said:
Can we be sure a head of state never bought Obama's book?

What should we do if we do find out one did?
Click to expand...

Unless Obama owned the publishing company or the bookstore, then it wouldn't matter as it wouldn't be an emolument to Obama. Same thing with any of Trump's books, by the way.
 
pinqy said:
Unless Obama owned the publishing company or the bookstore, then it wouldn't matter as it wouldn't be an emolument to Obama. Same thing with any of Trump's books, by the way.
Click to expand...

Why would he have to own the publishing house?

He made money from the sale of his book.

Is it OK to make a little money and not a lot, or what is the justification here?
 
Mason66 said:
Why would he have to own the publishing house?

He made money from the sale of his book.

Is it OK to make a little money and not a lot, or what is the justification here?
Click to expand...


Knowledge and control

A foreign leader buying one book is not something that a US government official would know about, as to influence a decision or policy. If the foreign leader bought 1 million books the US government official would know about and it could influence a decision or policy.

Overall the clause is about conflict of interests. The US government official is supposed to put the US interests first, rather than personal enrichment from being a US governmental official. It is this that helps keeps the US government from devolving into a Banana Republic, where the role of government is to enrich those within it rather than the country as a whole
 
faithful_servant said:
The Left would have been cheering for the fact that Pres. Obama was bringing business to the US and bragging about how under his admin., he personally brought in more foreign money into the US than any other President in history.
Click to expand...

He did ... sure as hell helped my Business ... because I clearly remember what was going on March 8th 2009 :mrgreen:
 
humbolt said:
Well, it's a living, breathing document subject to all the whimsey of the human condition. Wait a minute here. Are you saying we should interpret the constitution literally? No penumbras and emanations?
Click to expand...

Simple question: Is there a Constitutional limit on how many SCOTUS nominees that a President can nominate in one term? Yes or no?
 
Redress said:
I am going to give you the real answer, which is not the one most people want: No one knows exactly what would be considered an emolument for purposes of the constitution. Until a case makes its way through the court system, there is no clarity. It is possible that Trump could be considered in violation, but it is possible he would not be. It is also possible that the courts won't actually rule and do something like say those suing do not have standing. Any one who gives you a definite answer are unreliable in this case. They are explaining mostly what they want to be true, not what is.

And Maggie dear: Americans are never the enemy. They are at most the opposition. Maybe if we stop using such over the top rhetoric about each other, we can find more common ground...
Click to expand...

Exactly. The problem is that the supporters are against any delving or investigation for fear of what "might" be uncovered. To them, the truth is the enemy.
 
Captain Adverse said:
He isn't.

It is just another effort by the "disloyal opposition" to delegitimize him by any means necessary...another in a long list that has been going on since he was elected in November 2016.

1. He didn't win the popular vote so he's not the real President.
2. The electoral college (should be eliminated, or it's members suborned to vote for someone else, or found invalid so Congress can pick).
3. He won by Russian cheating.
4. He won by voter fraud.
5. He is not sane.
6. He is (insert any or all of the following memes here) racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.
7. He is a Stooge of Russia.
9. His tax returns will show he is corrupt and a liar.
10. Whatever the current rant is.
Click to expand...

It's never been litigated as far as I know so it's not clear whether POTUS is subject to the emoluments clause or not. Structurally it would seem it doesn't apply to POTUS since it's found only in Article 1 and the history of the clause seems to indicate that it was meant mostly meant for ambassadors but until it's actually tested we're all just guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom