—
Donald Trump reasoned Sunday that he nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court because she is a constitutionalist.
Does that mean Donald Trump is suddenly a fan of the Constitution?
Does that mean Donald Trump is finally going to start following the Constitution?
Perhaps Donald Trump should nominate himself — to read and actually conform to safeguards in Emoluments Clause — of that Constitution, that he is a suddenly a fan of …
The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the federal government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. [...]
The Framers' intentions for this clause were twofold: to prevent a society of nobility from being established in the United States, and to protect the republican forms of government from being influenced by other governments. In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton stated, "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." Therefore, to counter this "foreign corruption" the delegates at the Constitutional Convention worded the clause in such a way as to act as a catch-all for any attempts by foreign governments to influence state or municipal policies through gifts or titles.[4]
en.wikipedia.org
The meaning of the word “emolument” is contested in litigation challenging Trump’s alleged violations of both the foreign and the domestic clause. But most dictionaries from the era of the US’s founding define the word broadly. John Mikhail, a Georgetown law professor, looked at 40 different dictionaries published between 1604 and 1804 to try to determine how the word was understood at the time of the Constitution’s framing. He found that 37 of those 40 dictionaries give it a meaning that “would encompass sort of the profits of ordinary market transactions.”
Nearly all of these dictionary definitions, according to Mikhail’s research, encompass words like “profit,” “advantage,” or “gain.”
www.vox.com
by The World staff, Joyce Hackel, www.wksu.org — Sept 28, 2020
[...]
The framers of the Constitution really knew that they had to guard against this idea of corruption or else the entire system itself would crumble. Our system really, really depends on the legitimacy of public officials who are working for the public good and not for private gain. They talk a lot about the need to separate the love of power and love of money, as Benjamin Franklin puts it. And so, in part, they do this by creating structural separation of powers. They do this through these emoluments clauses. And this is because they really, really don't want the president being bought off or influenced by foreign governments or by individual states. It's also the reason why the framers insisted the president of the United States accept a salary. They wanted the president to be an employee of the United States, to be deriving his source of income only from his job as a public official because of this really, really fundamental concern of outside interests, sort of working to influence the president's thinking, considering the really astonishing amount of power and authority that the American system vests in the American executive.
[...]
The mere fact that we do not know the amount of money that the president might owe to foreign governments or foreign interests, that itself is a national security risk. That itself is a national security threat to the United States. And so, I think the immediate question is to what extent are the public — the American electorate and American voters — going to decide that this is not a risk that we can continue to take moving forward and to express that in who they vote for this election?
Speaking of risks, if President Trump wasn't in the Oval Office but still had the sort of debt, taxes and financial peril reflected in these tax documents, would he pass a security clearance?
I think unquestionably no. [...]
Compromised persons shall not be cleared ...
Whereas the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause now provides:
[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [i.e., 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.
That would include no loans, no real estate deals, no profit-taking from foreign officials booking over-priced stays in your hotels.
TRUMP: Saudi Arabia - and I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.
www.npr.org
In other words, Donald Trump “owes them” ...
In May [2019], the Trump administration issued an emergency declaration to push through an $8.1 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan without congressional approval.
www.pbs.org
Now that Donald — conflict-of-interest — Trump is such a BIG fan of Constitutionalism — he should be forced to follow its rules.
Donald Trump should be compelled to disclose the sources of his $421 Million dollar debt, that he will have to pay back in the next few years, according to his Tax Returns.
Let the American people decide, if Trump is worth the RISK. Based on which countries have their emolument deep-pocket strings — tied directly to his forever-being-audited Tax Returns.
— —
PS. Public record already tells us that when no other bank would back him — Deutsche Bank did.
To the tune of $2 BILLION dollar in loans.
—
Public record also tells us that Deutsche Bank was deeply involved in a Russian Money Laundering scheme — around the time The Donald was racking up his debts with them.
To the tune of $20 BILLION dollar in Russian money-laundering.
—
Such mega-million dollar obligations MATTER.
Anyone that dares to lead the American people — must declare and divest of such foreign debt obligations,
In order that that they will not be compromised while in Office, while conducting the foreign affairs of the nation. American Presidents must be looking out for the country’s best interest — not their own.
The Constitution says so. The Framers said so.
Common decency and transparency says so too.
You know, all the things the Donald Trump is not at all interested in — when all his lies and scheming is said and done.
— —
Yen Nee Lee, CNBC — Mar 19, 2019
Luke Harding, The Guardian — April 17, 2019
— —