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.

 

Constitution's Emoluments Clause Trump In Trouble Again

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Hey mods, can we change the title "Political Mud-Pit" to "Trump's Mud-Pit"? Thanks in advance.

Constitution's Emoluments Clause



No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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.


Why is this important? Well, here's why:

Maryland and D.C. plan to sue Trump over foreign payments



The suit being filed Monday will ask the court for an injunction blocking Trump from accepting foreign money, the person said. It will also ask for access to Trump's personal tax returns as part of the legal process known as discovery, the person said.

The White House had no immediate comment.


Does this really matter? Does it matter if Trump is being given bribe money from a foreign entity? Assuming of course you believe any of it true. Assume for moment his company books show wire transfer deposits from Russia, does it matter? Do laws matter? Or do we just give Trump a pass on this one since he's not really politician.

This seems like gotcha politics. Unless it can be show the money was being used for quid pro quo what difference does it make. Maybe I don't understand Article 9 enough to see why this is a big deal.




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You can have it! I'm more interested in understanding the Emoluments clause than Trump. What heck is this?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What it is, is another waste of time. It's Democratic partisans continuing to tear the country apart and to make certain that nothing happens in government.

If your team and its policies cannot win an election then win by trying to tar the other side.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Shamrock6

You can have it! I'm more interested in understanding the Emoluments clause than Trump. What heck is this?


You need a mudpit thread to teach you the clause?
I fear for modern knowledge acquisition tactics.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

www.marketwatch.com...

Donald Trump could refuse to put his businesses and investments in a blind trust, a strategy every other presidential candidate has used to deflect questions about potential conflicts of interest. That’s because the president and vice president are not considered employees, so the criminal conflict of interest statutesand the federal standards of ethical conduct do not apply to them. Trump cannot be forced to give up direct control or to sell investments that may present a conflict of interest with official duties, whether those conflicts are actual or just suggest the possibility of Trump acting in his own self-interest rather than the country’s. The requirement to divest conflicting assets and to manage conflicts on an ongoing basis is only applicable to appointed executive branch officials such as cabinet members. During the campaign Trump said he would give his companies to his children to run.



link

1. What, exactly, is the Emoluments Clause? It is 49 words in Article I of the Constitution. “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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.” In this instance, the words that matter most are the ones we have placed in italics. According to legal scholars, these words were added out of a concern from the 1700s that American ambassadors, on the far side of the ocean, might be corrupted by gifts from rich European powers. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, had accepted a snuffbox festooned with 408 diamonds from the King of France. John Jay accepted a horse from the King of Spain. After that, the Emoluments Clause rarely came up again. It’s never been the subject of a major court case and never been taken up by the Supreme Court, leaving great uncertainty about what it means — and to whom, exactly, it applies — in the 21st century.


translation: the left grasping at straws after all the # they threw at the wall, slid off onto their pathetic little faces.
edit on 12-6-2017 by network dude because: added thought



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: dfnj2015

What it is, is another waste of time. It's Democratic partisans continuing to tear the country apart and to make certain that nothing happens in government.

If your team and its policies cannot win an election then win by trying to tar the other side.


This is an orchestrated plan to overwhelm the president with lawsuits.

This emoluments issue was settled before Donald Trump took office in a lengthy document, explained in a press conference with attorneys present.

The two stooges that are bringing the lawsuit have no standing anyway.

It is sickening what the Democrat Party is doing to The American People/Taxpayers.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: dfnj2015

What it is, is another waste of time. It's Democratic partisans continuing to tear the country apart and to make certain that nothing happens in government.

If your team and its policies cannot win an election then win by trying to tar the other side.


what happens if this becomes the norm? I have a guess:



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
More Democrat self-immolation.






posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: dfnj2015

What it is, is another waste of time. It's Democratic partisans continuing to tear the country apart and to make certain that nothing happens in government.

If your team and its policies cannot win an election then win by trying to tar the other side.


I think the Marylanders are an isolated liberal cell. They are just acting on their own. They did not call me. I've been telling everyone to stop wasting time but they are not listening. These lone cells are acting on their own.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I don't know if they are grasping at straws but if they get a hold of Trumps income tax returns in discovery it could be a PR problem.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: network dude

I don't know if they are grasping at straws but if they get a hold of Trumps income tax returns in discovery it could be a PR problem.



If you look at the links I provided, this is not a normal thing. Nobody has worried about this clause since Ben Franklin's time, and in order to make this work for Trump, the SC must do some wild mental gymnastics to find a way to make this apply to something in today's language. Then there is the first link, where it's clearly explained that Trump doesn't have to turn over jack #, including his taxes.

I swear, I am not in this to be a Trump supporter, just to relay facts and stop the stupid when it comes to blaming Trump for every damn thing. But the left has been trying so hard to get anything at all to stick to this, they are looking really desperate. If I was on that side, I'd be embarrassed.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
JFK didn't show his taxes. There is no legal basis for Trump to show his taxes. This is a non starter IMO.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
JFK didn't show his taxes. There is no legal basis for Trump to show his taxes. This is a non starter IMO.


Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals. Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly. In the hope of making this information more widely available, the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns.

www.taxhistory.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: network dude

I don't know if they are grasping at straws but if they get a hold of Trumps income tax returns in discovery it could be a PR problem.



I don't think Trump is capable of recognizing a PR problem. If he did, he would close out his twitter account.

You reap what you sow....



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If a foreign government wanted to give 1 billion dollars to Trump, all they have to do is find a private citizen somewhere and pay him or her 100 dollars to deposit 1 billion dollars to Trump's personal bank account. The would not be traceable to that foreign government and gifts are not taxed so it wouldn't be on an income tax return. Maybe this has happened in the past with past presidents? Who knows.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: dfnj2015

What it is, is another waste of time. It's Democratic partisans continuing to tear the country apart and to make certain that nothing happens in government.

If your team and its policies cannot win an election then win by trying to tar the other side.


I think the Marylanders are an isolated liberal cell. They are just acting on their own. They did not call me. I've been telling everyone to stop wasting time but they are not listening. These lone cells are acting on their own.


Never was talking about you DFNJ. Pardon me if it came across that was. I was talking about the team of D's that seem hell bent on destroying the country.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

What network dude said...

I'm pretty apolitical any more... but gotta say... the Democrats/Lefties who support(ed) Clinton and the DNC Shriek Meter have made me pretty calloused to folks on the left. They are like a poorly managed compost pile... slimy and it stinks... and it's starting to piss off the entire neighborhood.

You guys lost... who gives a s**t about the "popular vote" ya'll... news flash for you... the Electoral College has been in use for 213 years... I know.. I know... it's news to you guys. That alone, suggests how out of touch you actually are.

It would be great if we could get a 3rd, or more, party going... so I have some choices... at this point... I may just have to be a lifelong voter against the DNC blessed candidates... I'm so SICK of their handwringing, hysteria and war mongering.




top topics



 
4

log in

join