Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump Will Be Violating the Emoluments Clause of Our Constitution on Day One.
As explained in a ProPublica piece:
The meaning of the Emoluments Clause is fairly clear. And it all goes back to a diamond-encrusted snuffbox Ben Franklin got from Louis XVI.
...
The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state without the consent of the Congress. The word emolument comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain. The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-89. The clause was derived from a Dutch rule dating to 1751.
The clause was added to the draft Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his states ratification convention in 1788, Pinckneys motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congresss ambassador to France. As Randolph said,
An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states.
The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented, after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee. At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain.
The clause was part of the basis for Alexander Hamiltons defense of the Constitution, in Federalist 22, as addressing one of the weak sides of republics: that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.
...
The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state without the consent of the Congress. The word emolument comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain. The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-89. The clause was derived from a Dutch rule dating to 1751.
The clause was added to the draft Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his states ratification convention in 1788, Pinckneys motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congresss ambassador to France. As Randolph said,
An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states.
The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented, after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee. At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain.
The clause was part of the basis for Alexander Hamiltons defense of the Constitution, in Federalist 22, as addressing one of the weak sides of republics: that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-would-be-violating-constitution-if-he-continues-to-own-his-businesses
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1888 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump Will Be Violating the Emoluments Clause of Our Constitution on Day One. (Original Post)
SunSeeker
Dec 2016
OP
world wide wally
(21,738 posts)1. Trump violates human nature and decency
Cha
(296,848 posts)2. Yes, and he has the US m$m behind him.. AKA
Pravda Central..
Mahalo SunSeeker~
canetoad
(17,136 posts)3. I was just reading this thread at Salon
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/donald-trump-says-at-tech-meeting-with-children-in-attendance-we-have-no-formal-chain-of-command/
About DFTs meeting with the tech guys. These two posts in the comments caught my eye:
BoswickB
3 hours ago
I don't understand why he doesn't just bring in investment bankers to divide up his companies and take them public, and just walk away with the cash instead of any shares. Or if he wanted to avoid tax issues, create a non-voting share class that he could keep to divest his control of the companies without having the whole valuation treated as capital gains in the offering.
pooponarope
2 hours ago
@BoswickB maybe because his debts outweigh his assets, something some people have suspected about the man all along.
LikeReply
About DFTs meeting with the tech guys. These two posts in the comments caught my eye:
BoswickB
3 hours ago
I don't understand why he doesn't just bring in investment bankers to divide up his companies and take them public, and just walk away with the cash instead of any shares. Or if he wanted to avoid tax issues, create a non-voting share class that he could keep to divest his control of the companies without having the whole valuation treated as capital gains in the offering.
pooponarope
2 hours ago
@BoswickB maybe because his debts outweigh his assets, something some people have suspected about the man all along.
LikeReply
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)4. Yup. Good comment. That is why he will never release his taxes. nt