It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

page: 19
26
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You said the phrase not me. If you weren't talking about them, then why even mention it in the first place? To obfuscate the topic? Because that would be trolling.


Nice try, but we both know AG's aren't judges. Now I'm wondering if you're trolling me.

Well no judges have listened to the case yet so why are you even discussing them? Trying to obfuscate the topic?




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Newsflash for MD and DC: Trump is not getting any perks from foreign nations for being President.

How do you know? Because you think it is true?


How do you know Obama didn't? Or Clinton? Or Carter?

Because they voluntarily divested their holdings before taking office as was the customary precedent set in place.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Devino

This is talking about excepting a position or a title. For example a president can't be knighted unless congress approved. Has nothing to do with money or gifts.
Look up "Emoluments".



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Darn, Trump is busted! If only he had setup a charity and funneled foreign donations through it while in govt office then he'd be untouchable.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dragonridr

I wonder what this means for presidents who were knighted?


The former US president Ronald Reagan became an honorary knight for the close relationship he developed with Britain in his time at America's helm, as did his defence secretary, Casper Weinberger.

The former president George Bush Sr is also an honorary knight, his title bestowed upon him following his involvement in the 1993 conflict in the Gulf.

General Norman Schwartzkopf and the former head of the joint chiefs of staff (now US secretary of state) Colin Powell also both received honorary knighthoods following their combined efforts in the Gulf war.


www.theguardian.com...

Both presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were knighted after their terms, not as sitting presidents.
edit on 6/13/2017 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Darn, Trump is busted! If only he had setup a charity and funneled foreign donations through it while in govt office then he'd be untouchable.

He does have a charity. It's called the Trump Foundation and it isn't really a charity since it is For Profit. No worries though, New York's AG is looking into it.
edit on 13-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: MotherMayEye
If you think Obama was in violation of the emoluments clause then why was it not brought up? Do you think it was because everybody loved Obama?


Perhaps.

It's not a wild idea.

Vom. Nope, it's not a wild idea.

I am for the equal application of the law...not a selective application. Want me to be impressed with the outrage at Trump and any possible violation of the Emoluments Clause? Then I want to see the outrage applied equally.
I am not outraged just reading the story as it happens. The difference here is that from the beginning, before Trump was sworn in, people were talking about possible conflicts of interests and how this could hinder his presidency. What did Trump do?

Now look, a lawsuit claiming possible conflicts of interest that might hinder his presidency. Who did not see this coming?

Is this the direction we want to go? What precedent should be set, should we follow the intent of this constitutional clause or allow the presidents to do what they want?

Addition; This causes me to wonder where Trumps loyalties lie. Is he for America or for his business?

I think outrage on ATS either way is worth nothing. What is important is how our government proceeds from here.
edit on 6/13/2017 by Devino because: addition



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Honestly the only thing democrats are doing are guaranteeing that people like me that were middle of the road before and have voted democrat before will never vote for them again.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Excellent post! It caused me to do some reading about why the states are suing in the first place.

States rights are coming home to roost, but not in the way the GOP intended. A state is a sovereign entity, and is afforded the ability to sue the federal government.

The action against Trump is being taken straight from the constitution--the emoluments clause--and states have a right to make their case in federal court.

I would think the armchair constitutional scholars on ATS would welcome this chance to see our founding document in action. If the case gets argued, there's going to be some interesting oral arguments about the scope and breadth of the emoluments clause, and a court will write a lengthy opinion about its finding.

For context, here are the emoluments clause and some commentary about it from Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 22.

The clause from the Constitution:

“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [the United States], 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.”


And here's some commentary about the genesis of the clause:


the US’s founding fathers had a different position on emoluments for government officials: they were firmly against them. One of their concerns was the threat of foreign monarchs using financial means to exert influence over American officials. That kind of corruption was seen as a weakness of the republican form of government. Leaders elected by their fellow citizens, wrote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, could be tempted with compensations that “to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty.”
Source: Quartz Media


And from Hamilton's mouth, here's an excerpt from Federalist 22 dealing with foreign corruption of the executive and how it has played out in history:

In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments. How much this contributed to the ruin of the ancient commonwealths has been already delineated. It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms. The Earl of Chesterfield (if my memory serves me right), in a letter to his court, intimates that his success in an important negotiation must depend on his obtaining a major's commission for one of those deputies. And in Sweden the parties were alternately bought by France and England in so barefaced and notorious a manner that it excited universal disgust in the nation, and was a principal cause that the most limited monarch in Europe, in a single day, without tumult, violence, or opposition, became one of the most absolute and uncontrolled.
Source: Federalist 22


So, as you can see, the states have a right to sue, vested in their interest, about something the founders anticipated when the constitution was drafted.

edit on 13-6-2017 by icanteven because: Typo



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Luccadeo6

How noble and imaginative of you.

I despair for the species, when logic like this is actually spoken aloud, as if worthy of the use of chemical resources necessary to utter it.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

And his admin was dragged through the courts also. It is Christians that support and revere this criminal and liar. Their god told them who the father of lies is, and still they revere him. Trump supporters along with their chosen party, republicans. have no moral authority over anyone.
Republicans changed the constitution with the Patriot Act, now its just their toilet paper, to make purging laws.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Bitter Wickedness




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
No proof. No evidence. What are they suing with? Nada.
edit on 13-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

There is a large swath of the Republican base, who only care about very small pieces of the Constitution, and care nothing at all for large chunks of it.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
No proof. No evidence. What are they suing with? Nada.


No proof or evidence? There's plenty of that....whether or not that proof equals a litigatable suit is what's in question really. I mean lets face it, there doesn't have to be proof of profit made, only that favor is attempting to be curried.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

There's nothing in the constitution against attempts. Every nation attempts to influence every president. That's not grounds for impeachment.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So what? That is what the entire elections are about anymore.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: alphabetaone

There's nothing in the constitution against attempts. Every nation attempts to influence every president. That's not grounds for impeachment.


Who said anything at all about impeachment? That's on you. I replied to your assertion that there was no evidence to bring suit

Are you sure youre even replying to the correct post? It seems you may be confused.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: alphabetaone

There's nothing in the constitution against attempts. Every nation attempts to influence every president. That's not grounds for impeachment.


Who said anything at all about impeachment? That's on you. I replied to your assertion that there was no evidence to bring suit

Are you sure youre even replying to the correct post? It seems you may be confused.

It really shows how that Trump supporters aren't even trying to understand the issue before throwing out their standard denials and deflections. Watch. When this lawsuit is settled, regardless of the outcome, when Trump isn't impeached they'll point to that as a victory for a "I told you so!" even though this was never about impeaching the President.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

hahaha followed-up with a tweet "Total vindication at today's nothingsuit. Enjoy!"







 
26
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join