Democratic U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation on Tuesday that would bar the president and other top officials from accepting payments from foreign governments while in office, a measure clearly aimed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The bill, which has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives as the Nov. 5 election approaches, is aimed at tightening enforcement of the Constitution's "Emoluments Clause."
House Oversight Committee Democrats released a report in January that found businesses tied to former President Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments from 20 countries during his four years in the White House.
"For centuries, the President and other high-ranking government officials strictly respected the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Sadly, President Trump's brazen acceptance of illegal foreign payments and benefits showed the need for clear rules enforcing the Constitution's preeminent anti-corruption provisions," said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who introduced the bill with Representative Jamie Raskin.
It is and it has been since 1787, but there's no functional difference between a law not being enforced and the thing the law's about being legal.
(Art. I, § 9, cl. 8):
“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
[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.”
(Art. II, § 1, cl. 7):
“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his
Services, a Compensation which shall neither be
encreased 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.”
(Art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “No Senator
or Representative shall, during the Time for which he
was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the
Authority of the United States, which shall have been
created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been
encreased during such time; and no Person holding any
Office under the United States, shall be a Member of
either House during his Continuance in Office.”
Wouldn’t it just be easier to enforce the one that’s already a law. And if what is already a law isn’t being enforced then, what makes this new law more enforceable?
I haven’t forgot, just like i haven’t forgot the administration has threatened sanctions to the international criminal court because they have evidence of US backed genocide.
It absolutely would. Unfortunately, if I remember the details of this circus when it was happening, there are no criminal penalties attached to those amendments, so the only people who can do anything about it are Congress. And what happens if Congress is controlled by your party? Well, exactly what happened when Trump was impeached twice for actions that were at least as significant...
(Art. I, 9, cl. 8): "[NJo Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [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'
Unfortunately this doesn't sufficiently cover things like 'Random Russian Billionaire Oligarch" so long as there is the slightest modicum of a veil of separation from "any King, Prince or State".
So for example, as long as Putin secretly tells his billionaire buddy to go pay off Trump and to keep it hush hush, this clause is even more toothless than it already is in practice.