Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 77

Thread: You people with this phony Emoluments Clause

  1. #1

    You people with this phony Emoluments Clause

    How is MAGA going to explain attacking the constitution?

    I haven't seen any PR after the fact on this, although in light of all the other things going on it isn't surprising to try to ignore this one and let it fade away.
    ďÖlet us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!Ē Ė Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    How is MAGA going to explain attacking the constitution?

    I haven't seen any PR after the fact on this, although in light of all the other things going on it isn't surprising to try to ignore this one and let it fade away.
    He is obviously referring to the phony claims of him violating the emoluments clause.

    It is the emoluments clause claims that are phony.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    How is MAGA going to explain attacking the constitution?
    Explain it to whom? Who cares if he attacks the Constitution? Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not the people who elected him when he campaigned on a platform of disdain for the Constitution.

  5. #4
    It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.
    I just want objectivity on this forum and will point out flawed sources or points of view at my leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 04/20/16
    There won't be a contested convention
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 05/30/17
    The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was blamed on putting a crosshair on a political map. I wonder what event we'll see justified with pictures like this.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.
    Please do go on.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  7. #6
    Article II, Section 1: "The President 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."




    Who says that civics education is dead? From what I can see, so far from being ignorant of the basic workings of government, we have become an entire nation of Harvard Law professors. Remember two years ago when every other journalist was a scholar of the Logan Act? After that it was the scope and authority of the executive branch. Forget what that nacarat oaf in the Oval Office says.

    We're a very smart bunch.

    And now we've moved on to something even more abstruse, the constitutional meaning of the foreign emoluments clause, upon which the people who are paid to pretend that they are seeking Donald Trump's impeachment have recently lighted. Those of you who do not spend your weekends in tricorn hats and woolen breeches handing out Cato Institute pocket Constitutions in a church parking lot — as I assume the average — can be forgiven for not having heard of it. It's the bit in Article 1, Section 9 in which the federal government is prohibited from issuing titles of nobility and certain persons from accepting them from foreign governments. Here is the full text:

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

    No matter what services I perform on behalf of this glorious Republic, I shall never, alas, be made Duke of Lower Upper Rural Opioid Whiteshire. What a shame! But what's all this about a "Person holding any Office of Profit or Truft under" the United States. Does this mean members of Congress themselves? All two million federal employees? People serving in the military? George Washington clearly did not think it applied to him when he graciously accepted a number of lavish gifts from the Marquis de Lafayette and King Louis XIV. Martin van Buren and John Tyler both got presents from an imam of the House of Said, but they donated them to the Treasury. Some scholars have argued that "Office of Profit or Trust" only refers to those who are appointed — ambassadors, members of the president's cabinet, and so on.



    The truth is that centuries later we still have no idea. Presidents receive hundreds of gifts each year and no one particularly cares. The clause has never given rise to any legal cases of note, and it has never been defined or even meaningfully addressed by the Supreme Court. Occasionally White House counsel will produce a memo like this ponderous one explaining why the president whose later mad bombing campaign in Libya would exacerbate arguably the worst refugee crisis in modern history could still receive the Nobel Peace Prize. But practically speaking, foreign emoluments are, like much of our written constitution, a dead letter.

    There is a good reason for this. Like any body of law, ours is full of things that have become irrelevant since its ratification. In some cases this is because it addressed a problem or institution — chattel slavery, for example — that no longer exists. In others it is because the language itself was so vague that no one could ever be seriously accused of violating it — see the aforementioned Logan Act, signed into law by John Adams in 1799.

    In the case of foreign emoluments, it is a bit of both. The ban on titles of nobility was included to distinguish the United States philosophically from the European monarchies; the prohibition of their acceptance was more practical, a shrewd response to the historical problem of courts like that of King Charles II being filled with pensioners of the French government. How we prevent something like this from taking place now, when, in a very real sense, virtually every living American who owns stock is a Chinese pensioner, is difficult to say. But legally preventing them from being named Duhu of the Western Regions is probably not the most pressing issue.

    Which brings us back to the absurd claim that, because he owns hotels at which, among many thousands of other paying guests, foreign businessmen and diplomats have been known to stay, Trump has violated this all-important constitutional dictum. What in the world have his businesses got to do with the foreign emoluments clause? So far as I am aware, Russian oligarchs at Mar-a-Lago present their credit cards, not offers of baronetcy or a Russian Social Insurance card or forms to register as a candidate for the next Duma election. An "emolument" is "any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office." Any profits arising from guests staying at Trump's properties arises, one would think, not from the fact that he has held the office of the presidency for three years but from the rather longer standing one that he owns luxury hotels. (Bill Clinton on the other hand was somewhat newer to the hospitality business when he allowed his most generous financial supporters to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom.) The argument is risible on its face.


    This is why a panel of three judges on the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit recently dismissed a lawsuit brought against Trump by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia with such thinly veiled contempt: "The District and Maryland's interest in enforcing the emoluments clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies," they wrote. This is the first and only time a court has ever ruled on the meaning of foreign emoluments; the case to which they were responding reads more like a draft law review article than a serious filing in federal court.

    If this is how a foreign emoluments case fares in court, how can anyone possibly take it seriously as grounds for the president's impeachment? Does anyone really believe that Trump is guilty under the terms of a 231-year-old law that has apparently never once been broken in all of American history, one that probably does not even apply to elected as opposed to appointed officials? Of course not. They just want him out of office. It doesn't take a Harvard Law degree to figure that out.





    https://www.theweek.com/articles/864...se-meaningless
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ NƎI⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  8. #7
    What is Ron Paul's position on the Emoluments Clause?


  9. #8
    "Any profits arising from guests staying at Trump's properties arises, one would think, not from the fact that he has held the office of the presidency for three years but from the rather longer standing one that he owns luxury hotels."

    Not necessarily. Profits could arise because guests stayed at Trump's properties solely because he is President and in an effort to curry his favor; were he a private cuitizen they would have stayed somewhere else.

    In addition, the 4th Circuit decision referred to was based solely on the plaintiffs' lack of standing; the court didn't addess the merits of the case, including "the meaning of foreign emoluments", contrary to the article's claim.

    Incidentally, the case is being heard again en banc by the entire 4th Circuit judges in December.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    "Any profits arising from guests staying at Trump's properties arises, one would think, not from the fact that he has held the office of the presidency for three years but from the rather longer standing one that he owns luxury hotels."

    Not necessarily. Profits could arise because guests stayed at Trump's properties solely because he is President and in an effort to curry his favor; were he a private cuitizen they would have stayed somewhere else.

    In addition, the 4th Circuit decision referred to was based solely on the plaintiffs' lack of standing; the court didn't addess the merits of the case, including "the meaning of foreign emoluments", contrary to the article's claim.

    Incidentally, the case is being heard again en banc by the entire 4th Circuit judges in December.
    The burden of proof rests on the state, unless they can read minds they can't prove such theories.
    Doing business isn't getting a gift, if the Constitution wanted to bar politicians from doing business it would have.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The burden of proof rests on the state, unless they can read minds they can't prove such theories.
    Doing business isn't getting a gift, if the Constitution wanted to bar politicians from doing business it would have.
    The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.
    Charging a person for a service, in a long standing business that existed prior to election, that has an established market value, is clearly not an emolument, not a wage, or a gift.

    Even if you can't understand that. Donald Trump turned over all control of his businesses. He has no clue who is staying at his hotels or what they are paying, so how can YOU establish the required proof that foreigners are giving the president a gift that violates the clause????
    I just want objectivity on this forum and will point out flawed sources or points of view at my leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 04/20/16
    There won't be a contested convention
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 05/30/17
    The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was blamed on putting a crosshair on a political map. I wonder what event we'll see justified with pictures like this.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    Charging a person for a service, in a long standing business that existed prior to election, that has an established market value, is clearly not an emolument, not a wage, or a gift.
    The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit. Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem. But that's a different issue.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit. Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem. But that's a different issue.
    So your position is an economic benefit is an emolument? That is complete distortion of the words meaning.
    I just want objectivity on this forum and will point out flawed sources or points of view at my leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 04/20/16
    There won't be a contested convention
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 05/30/17
    The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was blamed on putting a crosshair on a political map. I wonder what event we'll see justified with pictures like this.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The fact that fair market value is paid for the rooms doesn't negate the fact that there's a profit margin built in to the price and that the owner of the hotel will reap an economic benefit. Now if Trump's ownership of the entity or entities that are the legal owners of his hotels were small enough, there might not be a problem. But that's a different issue.
    I have officially diagnosed you with TDS.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    So your position is an economic benefit is an emolument? That is complete distortion of the words meaning.
    It's not a distortion of the way the word was used at the time the Constitution was adopted.

    In its motion to dismiss in CREW et al. v. Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ) defines the word “emolument” as “profit arising from office or employ.” DOJ claims that this “original understanding” of “emolument” is both grounded in “contemporaneous dictionary definitions” and justifies an “office-and employment-specific construction” of that term. On this basis, it argues that the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution “do not prohibit any company in which the President has any financial interest from doing business with any foreign, federal, or state instrumentality.”

    Unfortunately, DOJ’s historical definition of “emolument” is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading. Particularly because the government might seek to rely on its flawed definition in subsequent court filings, this Article seeks to correct the historical record. It does so based on a comprehensive study of how “emolument” is defined in English language dictionaries published from 1604 to 1806, as well as in common law dictionaries published from 1523 to 1792.

    Among other things, the Article demonstrates that every English dictionary definition of “emolument” from 1604 to 1806 relies on one or more of the elements of the broad definition DOJ rejects in its brief: “profit,” “advantage,” “gain,” or “benefit.” Furthermore, over 92% of these dictionaries define “emolument” exclusively in these terms, with no reference to “office” or “employment.” By contrast, DOJ’s preferred definition—“profit arising from office or employ”— appears in less than 8% of these dictionaries. Moreover, even these outlier dictionaries always include “gain, or advantage” in their definitions, a fact obscured by DOJ’s selective quotation of only one part of its favored definition from Barclay (1774). The impression DOJ creates in its brief by contrasting four historical definitions of “emolument”—two broad and two narrow—is, therefore,
    highly misleading.

    The suggestion that “emolument” was a legal term of art at the founding, with a sharply circumscribed “office-and-employment-specific” meaning, is also inconsistent with the historical record. A vast quantity of evidence already available in the public domain suggests that the founding generation used the word “emolument” in broad variety of contexts, including private commercial transactions. This Article adds to that emerging historical consensus by documenting that none of the most significant common law dictionaries published from 1523 to 1792 even includes “emolument” in its list of defined terms. In fact, this term is mainly used in these legal dictionaries to define other, less familiar words and concepts. These findings reinforce the conclusion that “emolument” was not a term of art at the founding with a highly restricted meaning.

    Finally, the Article calls attention to the fact that the government’s dictionarybased argument is flawed in another, more fundamental respect. Little or no evidence indicates that the two historical dictionaries—Barclay (1774) and Trusler (1766)—on which DOJ relies in its brief to defend its “office-and-employmentspecific” definition of “emolument” were owned, possessed, or used by the founders, let alone had any impact on them or on the American people who debated and ratified the Constitution. For example, neither of these dictionaries is mentioned in the more than 178,000 searchable documents in the Founders Online database, which makes publicly available the papers of the six most prominent founders. Nor do these volumes appear in other pertinent databases, such as the Journals of the Continental Congress, Letters of Delegates to Congress, Farrand’s Records, Elliot’s Debates, or the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. By contrast, all of the dictionaries that the founding generation did possess and use regularly—e.g., Johnson, Bailey, Dyche & Pardon, Ash, and Entick—define “emolument” in the broad manner favoring the plaintiffs: “profit,” “gain,” “advantage,” or “benefit.”

    To document its primary claims, the Article includes over 100 original images of English and legal dictionaries published between 1523 and 1806, as well as complete transcripts and easy-to-read tables of the definitions contained therein. A second study is currently underway of dictionaries from 1806 to the present, which seeks to determine how and why definitions of “emolument” may have changed over time. Collectively, these inquiries are designed to accomplish more than simply aiding judges and holding lawyers’ feet to the fire in the emoluments cases now pending in three federal courts. They also provide a basis for educating members of Congress, government officials, journalists, scholars, and the broader public about the historical meaning of this important yet obscure constitutional term.

    The Definition of "Emolument in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806, by John Mikhail, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....3&download=yes
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.
    An emolument is a gift, doing business isn't receiving a gift.
    You would have to prove that the business transaction took place as cover for a gift.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    An emolument is a gift, doing business isn't receiving a gift.
    You would have to prove that the business transaction took place as cover for a gift.
    No, the term is much broader than just a gift; see my previous post.

    Apparently Trump thought there was an issue because he promised in his campaign to donate profits from foreign government use of his properties to the U.S. Treasury, and his organization has in fact made two such donations ($151,470 and $191,538 for 2017 and 2018). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gn-governments

    Unfortunately, neither the Trump organization nor the Treasury Department has revealed how these donations were calculated. One article reported that Saudi Arabiaís government alone spent more at Trump International Hotel in the four months after Trump won the presidency than the entire Trump Organization donated to cover foreign profits either year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...ess-interests/
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  21. #18
    //
    Last edited by dannno; 10-25-2019 at 09:40 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, the term is much broader than just a gift; see my previous post.

    Apparently Trump thought there was an issue because he promised in his campaign to donate profits from foreign government use of his properties to the U.S. Treasury, and his organization has in fact made two such donations ($151,470 and $191,538 for 2017 and 2018). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gn-governments

    Unfortunately, neither the Trump organization nor the Treasury Department has revealed how these donations were calculated. One article reported that Saudi Arabiaís government alone spent more at Trump International Hotel in the four months after Trump won the presidency than the entire Trump Organization donated to cover foreign profits either year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...ess-interests/
    Even if we take emoluments to include all profits from any activity (which is dubious) it can't be applied to profits received through an entity he doesn't control as opposed to received directly.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Unfortunately, neither the Trump organization nor the Treasury Department has revealed how these donations were calculated. One article reported that Saudi Arabia’s government alone spent more at Trump International Hotel in the four months after Trump won the presidency than the entire Trump Organization donated to cover foreign profits either year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...ess-interests/
    I know the media has been really successful and duping dunderhead "college educated" folks into believing this bull$#@!, but even somebody with a high school diploma who owns a small business would see a huge problem with what you just said. Aren't you supposed to be an attorney or something???? Can't you see TDS is messing with your mental faculties?


    Profits = Revenue - Expenses

    aka

    "profits" = "spent more" - Expenses



    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, the term is much broader than just a gift; see my previous post.

    Apparently Trump thought there was an issue because he promised in his campaign to donate profits from foreign government use of his properties to the U.S. Treasury, and his organization has in fact made two such donations ($151,470 and $191,538 for 2017 and 2018). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gn-governments
    This is what people with TDS like to do the most. They like to assume what Trump was thinking and why he said or did something, when it is often not the case.
    Last edited by dannno; 10-24-2019 at 05:39 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    I know the media has been really successful and duping dunderhead "college educated" folks into believing this bull$#@!, but even somebody with a high school diploma who owns a small business would see a huge problem with what you just said. Aren't you supposed to be an attorney or something???? Can't you see TDS is messing with your mental faculties?


    Profits = Revenue - Expenses

    aka

    "profits" = "spent more" - Expenses
    Your point would be well taken if Saudi Arabia was the only foreign government to use Trump properties. But it isn’t. By one account at least 21 other governments have; see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...rties-n1015806).

    Assuming a pretax operating profit margin of 10% (this seems reasonable – see https://csimarket.com/Industry/indus...ind=906&hist=5 ), the profit just from the Saudis during just the four-month period at just one property would be at least $19,000, which represents at least 13% of the donation for 2017.

    Considering that the Trump organization has many more properties worldwide that have been used by many more governments, it’s not unreasonable to question the accuracy of the donation figures.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 10-25-2019 at 07:47 AM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.

    I'm just a woman with a gigantic clitoris. REALLY gigantic. Pity me for the cross I bear.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    It's phony because they are changing the meaning of emoluments. Just like they are forcing people to change the meaning of male and female.
    Nope.
    Emoluments Clause: It was originally intended and continues to represent an absolute prohibition of the receipt of anything of value by a federal government officeholder from a foreign government.

    This was very important to the FF because of the strong ties many "Americans" had to the British gov. The meaning has NEVER changed.
    There is no spoon.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Your point would be well taken if Saudi Arabia was the only foreign government to use Trump properties. But it isn’t. By one account at least 21 other governments have; see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...rties-n1015806).

    Assuming a pretax operating profit margin of 10% (this seems reasonable – see https://csimarket.com/Industry/indus...ind=906&hist=5 ), the profit just from the Saudis during just the four-month period at just one property would be at least $19,000, which represents at least 13% of the donation for 2017.

    Considering that the Trump organization has many more properties worldwide that have been used by many more governments, it’s not unreasonable to question the accuracy of the donation figures.
    So because 13% of the budget was used by the Saudis, clearly Trump's calculations were wrong, he owes more money, and he must be removed from office.

    Do you know what that is??

    TD $#@!ing S.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    So because 13% of the budget was used by the Saudis, clearly Trump's calculations were wrong, he owes more money, and he must be removed from office.

    Do you know what that is??

    TD $#@!ing S.
    Damn, you're dense, but that I guess that goes with being a Trump apologist. There is no budget, and I haven't said he should be removed from office. In a previous post I said that if his ownership in the entities that own his properties is low enough, there shouldn't be a problem. But he's so tight-assed about his finances there's no way to verify the accuracy of the donations. Given his propensity to not be truthful I'm sure not going to take his or his organization's word for it, but the gullible and credulous just might.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  30. #26
    What exactly is the charge here against Trump, does anyone here claim to have a legit charge
    against Trump regarding this Clause, lol , I didn't think so.

    Your time would better serve America by worrying about the attacks that matter:
    Patriot Act
    DHS
    TSA
    NSA
    NDAA
    DUE PROCESS
    ASSEST FORFEITURE
    POLICE HOME INVASIONS
    FOREIGN WARS (ILLEGAL)


    No, you just want to jump on some obscure semantics game and spin your fake concern
    to make Trump look the bad ORANGE MAN.
    Where there are constitutional issues with him that matter, those are the issues
    that you all ignore.


  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Your point would be well taken if Saudi Arabia was the only foreign government to use Trump properties. But it isn’t. By one account at least 21 other governments have; see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...rties-n1015806).

    Assuming a pretax operating profit margin of 10% (this seems reasonable – see https://csimarket.com/Industry/indus...ind=906&hist=5 ), the profit just from the Saudis during just the four-month period at just one property would be at least $19,000, which represents at least 13% of the donation for 2017.

    Considering that the Trump organization has many more properties worldwide that have been used by many more governments, it’s not unreasonable to question the accuracy of the donation figures.
    Trump doesn't get 100% of the profits from his company and he doesn't control who they do business with.

    That's the end of any emoluments claim.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Constitution doesn't bar politicians from doing business in general, but it does bar federal officials from receiving emoluments from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The Framers couldn't read minds either, which is why the prohibition in the Emoluments Clause is broader than a mere prohibition of bribery, which is a ground for impeachment the Constitution addresses elsewhere. Prohibiting the receipt of emoluments avoids even the appearance of impropriety or corruption.
    Is this serious or a joke? Please be a joke.

    I guess only life-long, cradle-to-grave, career politicians who don't privately own any business can now get into politics. Because that's worked so well!

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    I guess only life-long, cradle-to-grave, career politicians who don't privately own any business can now get into politics. Because that's worked so well!
    Good grief. Look, a politician can own a business, but neither he nor his business can receive anything of value from a foreign government without the consent of Congress (Constitution I.9.8). If he's the President then in addition he can't receive value from the federal government or any state government, other than his salary (Constitution II.1.7).
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump doesn't get 100% of the profits from his company and he doesn't control who they do business with.

    That's the end of any emoluments claim.
    Hardly. The foreign Emoluments Clause doesn't permit the receipt of ANY emoluments, so it's immaterial whether he receives 100% or 1%. And the question's not one of control, because the foreign Emoluments Clause isn't phrased in terms of willfully receiving emoluments or causing them to be paid. It's a blanket prohibition on receipt, period.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump Can Go Forward, Judge Says
    By Zippyjuan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2018, 08:02 PM
  2. Judge says emoluments case against Trump can proceed in DC
    By Zippyjuan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-26-2018, 12:05 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 03:41 AM
  4. Montana to Fight Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause
    By tonesforjonesbones in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2009, 12:34 PM
  5. people who claim ron paul is a phony
    By SouthGeorgia61 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-07-2008, 07:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •