Disaster in the Making

[Adre]

It's worse than that.

These dumbfuks with their "Emoluments Clause!" rallying cry don't understand what an emolument actually is.

It's a "gift".

Anyone know how a "sale" in the normal course of business turns into a "gift" just because the guy who owns the business is "famous" now? Hint: it requires something in addition to the "sale". Something like a price break, or "free stuff" or...

Wait! Trump might be getting "favors" from foreign governments!!! It's like the people who believe that crap don't understand this is DONALD J. TRUMP we're talking about here. You know, the guy who makes deals with foreign governments to be allowed to put up buildings and construct golf courses with his name on them...

What "favors" do you think a foreign government could grant him? A sweetheart deal to put his sons on the board of an energy company with a corresponding high salary? Really?

emolument noun
emol·​u·​ment | \ i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt \
Definition of emolument
1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites


Compensation. Not gift.

So the dumbfuks do actually know what an emolument is.

 

[HisArpy]

A year or so ago I think I posted an article by a legal authority that stated the Emoluments Clause doesn't even apply to the President in the first place.

I remember that.

Unfortunately, as time goes by things have a habit of changing. When the Constitution was written, non-whites and women weren't considered "men". Funny how that doesn't seem to be the case today.

Based on history, it's likely the emoluments clause was originally not intended to apply to the President. However, as things are wont to do, that viewpoint has changed and most Presidents consider it binding upon them.

What's not included in the talking point is whether they are receiving a "gift" or not. Emoluments are "gifts" and the SCOTUS has said that Trump's continued income from his business operations are not a violation of the emoluments clause.

Hence, ordinary business income is NOT a "gift". Trump could have hosted the summit at the Doral and charged full price and STILL not violate the Emoluments Clause.

 

[HisArpy]

emolument noun
emol·​u·​ment | \ i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt \
Definition of emolument
1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites


Compensation. Not gift.

So you're saying that the salary (compensation) of every government employee, including Congress, is a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

What a fucking idjit you turned out to be today.

 

[Adre]

So you're saying that the salary (compensation) of every government employee, including Congress, is a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

What a fucking idjit you turned out to be today.

No, idiot, every government employee is paid by the United States, not the G7 countries. See that little difference?

 

[HisArpy]

No, idiot, every government employee is paid by the United States, not the G7 countries. See that little difference?

dudly, re-read your definition and see where "arising from office or employment" applies and makes you look like a fool for the day.

See, what you want to do is add words to the definition to make it fit what you want to believe. That ain't the way it works. That's not MY opinion on the matter, it's the legal opinion of the 9 justices on the US Supreme Court.




Fuck this noise. I have to go to work. Think what you want. It's stupid to believe what you want to believe about the E-Clause, but no one can stop you from committing to your own insanity.

 

[Rightguide]

I remember that.

Unfortunately, as time goes by things have a habit of changing. When the Constitution was written, non-whites and women weren't considered "men". Funny how that doesn't seem to be the case today.

Based on history, it's likely the emoluments clause was originally not intended to apply to the President. However, as things are wont to do, that viewpoint has changed and most Presidents consider it binding upon them.

What's not included in the talking point is whether they are receiving a "gift" or not. Emoluments are "gifts" and the SCOTUS has said that Trump's continued income from his business operations are not a violation of the emoluments clause.

Hence, ordinary business income is NOT a "gift". Trump could have hosted the summit at the Doral and charged full price and STILL not violate the Emoluments Clause.

I suspect the when the case is heard in the Second District Court of Appeals on December 12th the same will be ruled.

 

[schism666]

a fake constitutionalist and a failed lawyer defending a sitting president calling the constitutionan phony. the TDS is strong with these two hypocrites this morning.

 

[bigsly]

An enjoyable, concise, short 5 page read (not that it'll make any educational impact on the partisans pukes of both repugnant political party sides in this thread):

The Text and History of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
https://www.theusconstitution.org/w...-History-of-the-Foreign-Emoluments-Clause.pdf

Of course Presidents were especially direct objects of the Clause, as is clear in any reading of the debaters' words during the Convention itself (where the Clause was actually inserted into the proposed Constitution), and during the state ratifying conventions.

Also consider the intentional emphasis on "private capacity", "private commerce" and "ordinary business dealings":

The Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the acceptance of any benefits or advantages from foreign states—including compensation for services rendered in a private capacity.

•The word “emolument” was defined broadly in the eighteenth century to mean “profit,” “advantage,” “benefit,” and “comfort.”27

•Contemporary writers used the term to refer, among other things, to profits accruing from private commerce.28

•Founding-era statesmen including George Washington and James Madison likewise used the term when referring to “the consequences of ordinary business dealings.”29

•And Edmund Randolph’s comments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, specifically addressing the Foreign Emoluments Clause, reflected this broad definition as well.30

Statist/conservative/Republican political party hacks openly ID themselves when they whine the Clause doesn't apply to their President Trump - when it unarguably, intentionally, directly and specifically does.

Likewise, socialist/conservative/Democrat political party hacks easily out themselves as such when they whine the Clause didn't apply to their Secretary of State under Obama - when it also unarguably, intentionally, directly and specifically did.

The authors and ratifiers of the Clause worked from literal minds, free of any of the repugnant political party partisanship STANDARD today, and would've impeached and kicked both of those bozos out of Office without any haste or second thought at all.

 

[chillywilly2]

I prefer the simpler approach.

You have a president who is a multi billionaire wanting to make a few bucks and show off to the world by hosting a government do at his country club.

Is the few bucks he is going to make worth looking like a POS to half the country.
Or do you host it at a friends club like the canadian prime minister does

 

[Adre]

“The White House said Tuesday it will not be renewing subscriptions to The New York Times and The Washington Post, two papers the president frequently attacks as “fake” and which he suggested canceling the previous night in a TV appearance.”


I’m pretty sure the writing level was a bit of a challenge for the Stable Genius anyway.

 

[Rightguide]

a fake constitutionalist and a failed lawyer defending a sitting president calling the constitutionan phony. the TDS is strong with these two hypocrites this morning.

The left is so weak and ignorant.

 

[KeithD]

I’m pretty sure the writing level was a bit of a challenge for the Stable Genius anyway.

More likely, Donald only heard yesterday that the White House had subscriptions.

 

[schism666]

The left is so weak and ignorant.

excellent defense of your ignorance.

 

[phrodeau]

I suspect the when the case is heard in the Second District Court of Appeals on December 12th the same will be ruled.

Really? You think that the judges at the Appeals Court will rule that emoluments from foreign sources are the same as domestic ones? That they’re as stupid and misinformed as our friend Hisarpy here?

Maybe they’re all Trump appointees.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

 

[schism666]

Read and saw the news today...


Still waiting upon the 'disaster...'

1. go to the library
2. check out a dictionary
3. look up "disaster" in said dictionary
4. be enlightened

 

[Rightguide]

An enjoyable, concise, short 5 page read (not that it'll make any educational impact on the partisans pukes of both repugnant political party sides in this thread):

The Text and History of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
https://www.theusconstitution.org/w...-History-of-the-Foreign-Emoluments-Clause.pdf

Of course Presidents were especially direct objects of the Clause, as is clear in any reading of the debaters' words during the Convention itself (where the Clause was actually inserted into the proposed Constitution), and during the state ratifying conventions.

Also consider the intentional emphasis on "private capacity", "private commerce" and "ordinary business dealings":



Statist/conservative/Republican political party hacks openly ID themselves when they whine the Clause doesn't apply to their President Trump - when it unarguably, intentionally, directly and specifically does.

Likewise, socialist/conservative/Democrat political party hacks easily out themselves as such when they whine the Clause didn't apply to their Secretary of State under Obama - when it also unarguably, intentionally, directly and specifically did.

The authors and ratifiers of the Clause worked from literal minds, free of any of the repugnant political party partisanship STANDARD today, and would've impeached and kicked both of those bozos out of Office without any haste or second thought at all.

In Hoyt v. United States (1850), the SCOTUS defined an emolument as “embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office.”


In other words the emolument had to directly result from an official action. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 73:

It is not easy, therefore, to commend too highly the judicious attention which has been paid to this subject in the proposed Constitution. It is there provided that "The President of the United States 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.'' It is impossible to imagine any provision which would have been more eligible than this. The legislature, on the appointment of a President, is once for all to declare what shall be the compensation for his services during the time for which he shall have been elected. This done, they will have no power to alter it, either by increase or diminution, till a new period of service by a new election commences. They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice. Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.

In other words payments from foreign sources that may induce him to "desert or renounce" his duties as President. It had nothing to do with private business interests. It was only concerned with the President receiving payments for doing something as President.

This is why nobody who wrote the Constitution paid any attention to the fact that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, both had private businesses when elected, and why Ronald Reagan was allowed to keep his pension for being the Governor of California, because they had nothing to do with them being President.

 

[Rightguide]

Really? You think that the judges at the Appeals Court will rule that emoluments from foreign sources are the same as domestic ones? That they’re as stupid and misinformed as our friend Hisarpy here?

Maybe they’re all Trump appointees.

See my post 1191.

 

[phrodeau]

See my post 1191.

Emoluments are totally fine, unless they are coming from foreign sources. It really isn't hard to understand.

Now are you going to claim that George and Thomas were selling their beer and pot to foreigners?

 

[Adre]

Emoluments are totally fine, unless they are coming from foreign sources. It really isn't hard to understand.

Now are you going to claim that George and Thomas were selling their beer and pot to foreigners?

Yet it seems very hard for Whiteguide and HisDerpy to grasp this simple concept. They seem to think that Trump is immune to bribery.

 

[BotanyBoy]

botfly is too stupid to know the difference between "news" and a meme.

explains nothing but it's fun to point out his mental damage

No I'm not.

You're a twitterite like the rest of the SJW loonz.

Did you happen to see the video footage of Kurdish kids throwing spoiled fruit and rocks at the retreating American troops?

MAGA.

And you think we should stay there and defend that....LOL truly anti-American scum you are.

I hope Turkey exterminates your little socialist comrades with EXTREME prejudice. You progressives are a fucking disease upon humanity.

It's a shame that everyone who is worried about endless wars now didn't think about that before Bush II took us into Iraq.

Going into Iraq was not a commitment to eternal participation in an endless conflict that can't be resolved through external intervention.

And the only reason the SUDDENLY pro war forever "progressives" are suddenly so gung ho for eternal war??

1) Orange man BAD!!
2) Kurds = socialist terrorist....good comrades are good, protect their borders more than our own, because good comrades are good.

Either way the "progressive" left has NOTHING but hypocrisy and anti-Americanism to stand on in this situation.

As usual.

 

[Rightguide]

Emoluments are totally fine, unless they are coming from foreign sources. It really isn't hard to understand.

Now are you going to claim that George and Thomas were selling their beer and pot to foreigners?

You really are an idiot.

 

[Rightguide]

Yet it seems very hard for Whiteguide and HisDerpy to grasp this simple concept. They seem to think that Trump is immune to bribery.

There hasn't been any bribery you dumb racist runt.

 

[bigsly]

In Hoyt v. United States (1850), the SCOTUS defined an emolument as “embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office.”


In other words the emolument had to directly result from an official action. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 73:

It is not easy, therefore, to commend too highly the judicious attention which has been paid to this subject in the proposed Constitution. It is there provided that "The President of the United States 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.'' It is impossible to imagine any provision which would have been more eligible than this. The legislature, on the appointment of a President, is once for all to declare what shall be the compensation for his services during the time for which he shall have been elected. This done, they will have no power to alter it, either by increase or diminution, till a new period of service by a new election commences. They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice. Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.

In other words payments from foreign sources that may induce him to "desert or renounce" his duties as President. It had nothing to do with private business interests. It was only concerned with the President receiving payments for doing something as President.

This is why nobody who wrote the Constitution paid any attention to the fact that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, both had private businesses when elected, and why Ronald Reagan was allowed to keep his pension for being the Governor of California, because they had nothing to do with them being President.

And once again: if Trump was a Democrat, you'd argue the exact opposite - you know it, everyone knows it. Which is what makes you mostly nothing but a statist/conservative/Republican political party partisan hack, no less than the other partisan hacks in this thread doing the exact same except from their own partisanly bigoted viewpoints. It's what you bozos do.

 

[Adre]

There has been any bribery you dumb racist runt.

6’2” hardly qualifies as a runt, cunt.

 

[HisArpy]

Really? You think that the judges at the Appeals Court will rule that emoluments from foreign sources are the same as domestic ones? That they’re as stupid and misinformed as our friend Hisarpy here?

Maybe they’re all Trump appointees.

GOFUCKYOURSELF