HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Emoluments: Just a consti...

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 05:47 PM

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

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:06 PM

1. There are clauses in both Article I and Article II of the US Constitution. Enforcement? Impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:59 PM

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,....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 07:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:06 PM

2. Congress possesses the ultimate form of enforcement - impeachment and removal from office. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 06:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 21, 2019, 09:38 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Sat Oct 19, 2019, 10:24 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Mon Oct 21, 2019, 10:52 AM

8. Impeachment and removal by Congress is the only

enforcement power there is against a President. Period. More's the pity, perhaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Mon Oct 21, 2019, 10:54 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Mon Oct 21, 2019, 12:50 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread