Emoluments clause of the Constitution

[Astrostar]

So Trump calls it "Phony." I guess that means that his oath in 2017 to "protect and defend the Constitution...so help me God", was phony also.

There is no question that the dumb ass thinks he is a monarch at best or a dictator at worst. Thank God Pelosi and the Democras are keeping a very close eye on this idiot. It's going to be such a big, beautiful impeachment, and the sooner the better! Bigly!!!

Trump goes on rant over 'phony' emoluments clause - CNN Video

 

[georgephillip]

"When a man unprincipled in private life..."

Did Hamilton know men like Trump?

 

[Weatherman2020]

“First, the top-lines. Counting only gifts given to the president or to the president and other members of his family, foreign countries and their representatives have given Obama over $717,000 worth of stuff since he was inaugurated. (The first gift came on inauguration day, from Mexico. It was a book and a piece of art.) According to our index of all of the gifts, the best swag came in 2011.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-barack-obama-between-2009-and-2012-ranked/

 

[DGS49]

Putting it simply, an "emolument" is a payment from a third party for doing nothing more than executing the duties of the Office of the President.

A payment for lodgings or related services is NOT an emolument, even if it were given directly to the President.

To use a popular expression of the day, a "quid pro quo" in the normal course of business is not an emolument.

Even someone with TDS should understand this simple thing.

And BTW, President Trump never said that the emoluments clause was "phony." Only the Democrat interpretation of it. Which as usual is correct.

 

[Astrostar]

Putting it simply, an "emolument" is a payment from a third party for doing nothing more than executing the duties of the Office of the President.

A payment for lodgings or related services is NOT an emolument, even if it were given directly to the President.

To use a popular expression of the day, a "quid pro quo" in the normal course of business is not an emolument.

Even someone with TDS should understand this simple thing.

And BTW, President Trump never said that the emoluments clause was "phony." Only the Democrat interpretation of it. Which as usual is correct.

Read stupid Trump statement #28.

The 41 most out-there lines from Donald Trump's Cabinet meeting - CNNPolitics

 

[Maxdeath]

Putting it simply, an "emolument" is a payment from a third party for doing nothing more than executing the duties of the Office of the President.

A payment for lodgings or related services is NOT an emolument, even if it were given directly to the President.

To use a popular expression of the day, a "quid pro quo" in the normal course of business is not an emolument.

Even someone with TDS should understand this simple thing.

And BTW, President Trump never said that the emoluments clause was "phony." Only the Democrat interpretation of it. Which as usual is correct.

Read stupid Trump statement #28.

The 41 most out-there lines from Donald Trump's Cabinet meeting - CNNPolitics

CNN? Have you got an almost reliable news service or are you going for looking foolish?

 

[dudmuck]

Putting it simply, an "emolument" is a payment from a third party for doing nothing more than executing the duties of the Office of the President.

A payment for lodgings or related services is NOT an emolument, even if it were given directly to the President.

To use a popular expression of the day, a "quid pro quo" in the normal course of business is not an emolument.

Even someone with TDS should understand this simple thing.

And BTW, President Trump never said that the emoluments clause was "phony." Only the Democrat interpretation of it. Which as usual is correct.

Its actually the Title of Nobility Clause.
Which restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress.

When a foreign state stays in Trump properties, Its effectively a gift to Trump.

Framers of the Constitution felt that titles of nobility had no place in an equal and just society because they clouded people's judgment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Already a thread on this...and it was just as stupid

 

[Zorro!]

So Trump calls it "Phony." I guess that means that his oath in 2017 to "protect and defend the Constitution...so help me God", was phony also.

There is no question that the dumb ass thinks he is a monarch at best or a dictator at worst. Thank God Pelosi and the Democras are keeping a very close eye on this idiot. It's going to be such a big, beautiful impeachment, and the sooner the better! Bigly!!!

Trump goes on rant over 'phony' emoluments clause - CNN Video

Wow what a bummer!

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: A Ruth Bader Ginsburg Opinion Helped Trump Beat The Democrats’ Emoluments Lawsuit.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the lawsuit on Feb. 7 on technical grounds, relying in part on a 2019 Ginsburg opinion.

The D.C. Circuit disagreed, saying the plaintiff-lawmakers have no basis for their suit. The panel patiently explained that individual members of a legislature have no standing to protect the legislature’s institutional interests in court. That’s because legislatures exercise power as a body through majority vote. Power does not belong to any particular member.

The Supreme Court first said as much in a 1997 case called Raines. Ginsburg reiterated that principle in her 2019 majority opinion in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, a case involving a fight over racially gerrymandered legislative districts. Ginsburg’s opinion in Bethune-Hill, “puts paid to any doubt regarding the Members’ lack of standing,” the D.C. Circuit said.

“After Raines and Bethune-Hill, only an institution can assert an institutional injury,” Friday’s decision reads.

“Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members — 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the decision adds.

Friday’s ruling was unsigned and unanimous for an ideologically diverse panel that included Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, David Tatel and Thomas Griffith.