Sat Oct 19, 2019, 05:47 PM
California_Republic (1,826 posts)
Emoluments: Just a constitutional suggestion?
The emoluments clause seems pretty clear. Is there no teeth behind this? No way to enforce it? If not then Emoluments clause is just a suggestion, right?
|
10 replies, 1108 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
California_Republic | Oct 2019 | OP |
Garrett78 | Oct 2019 | #1 | |
unblock | Oct 2019 | #4 | |
Garrett78 | Oct 2019 | #5 | |
PoliticAverse | Oct 2019 | #2 | |
StarfishSaver | Oct 2019 | #3 | |
PoliticAverse | Oct 2019 | #7 | |
Voltaire2 | Oct 2019 | #6 | |
MineralMan | Oct 2019 | #8 | |
kentuck | Oct 2019 | #9 | |
muriel_volestrangler | Oct 2019 | #10 |
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:06 PM
Garrett78 (10,721 posts)
1. There are clauses in both Article I and Article II of the US Constitution. Enforcement? Impeachment.
Response to Garrett78 (Reply #1)
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:59 PM
unblock (50,296 posts)
4. Impeachment is not the intended remedy, at least not the sole intended remedy.
Had the framers intended that, they either would have merely listed it as another basis for impeachment or not listed it at all (as it is basically implied by high crimes and misdemeanors).
I believe congress could enforce it by law, though I'm not sure they've done that re the president. What I think they can do is simply claim that any such emoluments do not belong to the president, but belong to the federal government itself. So the federal government could send Donnie a bill. Not that he'd pay it,.... |
Response to unblock (Reply #4)
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 07:44 PM
Garrett78 (10,721 posts)
5. Not only would he not pay it, it would be much too hard to track.
For one thing, he's hiding his financial records. And even if his immediate earnings from, say, holding the G7 summit at his property were confiscated, there will be future earnings as a result of having the summit there (from the publicity, from the renovations, etc.).
Plus, he'd tie it up in courts for years. I think impeachment and removal is the only recourse. |
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:06 PM
PoliticAverse (26,007 posts)
2. Congress possesses the ultimate form of enforcement - impeachment and removal from office. n/t
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:09 PM
StarfishSaver (18,486 posts)
3. PoliticAverse is right. Impeachment is the clear remedy. Civil litigation is also a possibility
But that's very difficult, as we've seen. Among other things, standing (i.e. who actually has the right to sue) is difficult to establish and even if it is, the remedy and ultimate enforcement mechanism aren't clear.
|
Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)
Mon Oct 21, 2019, 09:38 AM
PoliticAverse (26,007 posts)
7. It's possible that a court could order the President to stop some activity
that the court believes violates the emoluments clause (a case is working its way through the courts currently)
but it seems more likely the court would ultimately pass this to Congress to enforce. |
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Sat Oct 19, 2019, 10:24 PM
Voltaire2 (10,143 posts)
6. The only enforcement in the constitution
for violations of its text by the executive branch is impeachment. This isn’t just emoluments it’s everything.
|
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Mon Oct 21, 2019, 10:52 AM
MineralMan (143,650 posts)
8. Impeachment and removal by Congress is the only
enforcement power there is against a President. Period. More's the pity, perhaps.
|
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Mon Oct 21, 2019, 10:54 AM
kentuck (105,281 posts)
9. Just because it has never been used before...
or very rarely, does not mean it is legal.
It means that we now have someone that is willing to break precedent and the law. That does not mean the law is obsolete. |
Response to California_Republic (Original post)
Mon Oct 21, 2019, 12:50 PM
muriel_volestrangler (97,778 posts)
10. Not even a suggestion, it seems. He has now declared it "phony", in cabinet.
“You people with this phony Emoluments Clause” and More from the Crazed Prez
These are all real quotes from the pool report filed just moments ago. On whistleblower: “Do we have to protect a whistleblower who gives a false account? I don’t know. You tell me.” “It’s possibly Schiff.” “Why didn’t he say he met with the whistleblower.” “I’m trying to get out of wars. We may have to get in wars, too.” “I have to fight off these lowlifes at the same time I’m negotiating these deals.” ... “I own a property in Florida” “I would have given it for nothing.” Touts giving up salary, says probably only George Washington did that, not Obama “I’m very good a real estate.” “Everyone in the G-7 would have had their own building.” Security, next to Miami airport “The Democrats went crazy, even though I would have done it free.” Not for promotion, but no “I don’t need promotion. I don’t need promotion.” “It would have been the best G-7 ever.” Washington ran business at the same time he was president “Obama made a deal for a book. Did he run a business?” “He has a deal with Netflix. When did they start talking about that?” “You people with this phony Emoluments Clause” Actually losing money It’s cost me “between $2 billion and $5 billion” Would do it again “If you’re rich, it doesn’t matter.” https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-people-with-this-phony-emoluments-clause-and-more-from-the-crazed-prez |