A new interpretation of the emoluments clause

Heads-up in advance: I am not kidding …

“Filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that ‘would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official.'”

Yup, that’s right. Our government officials can take all the foreign bribes they want as long as the foreign governments don’t actually hand them the checks. According to this interpretation, it is literally true that if Joe President owned a bank, he could accept unlimited amounts of “interest payments” from foreign investors.

8 thoughts on “A new interpretation of the emoluments clause

  1. This article — and a few of the comments above — are way off. Just because something may not be prohibited under the Emoluments Clause, that does not mean or imply that it is “permitted” as the linked Guardian article states. There could very easily be federal statutes that regulate or prohibit certain commercial activities that the President engages in. Sometimes you are prohibited from operating a publicly-listed business if you have repeatedly declared bankruptcy for example. Many other SEC regulations limit what Trump can do in the commercial sphere, and can lawfully punish him, despite the Emoluments Clause, if he violates the law. (See Taxes, duty to file).

    1. Really? Now you’re saying that Trump hasn’t filed his taxes just because he won’t show them? Hmmmm…. interesting analogy.

  2. Y’all can add or interpret anyway you want but the Emoluments Clause is such: “Emoluments Clause. Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title from any “King, Prince, or foreign State,” without congressional consent.”

    Nothing in there that says the President or any other Federal official cannot own a business that KIngs, Princes and foreign states patronize.

    The wording is very simple. It’s almost as if the Founders knew there would be people in the future who would try to misinterpret the clause for their own purposes.

    It is a fact that George Washington (our first elected President for those of you who don’t know that) had several businesses that bought and sold merchandise from and to French and British customers and no one thought HE was in violation of the Emolument Clause (which was only recently written so you’d think they would have known).

    So, stop adding words and imagined meanings from your own POV and just go with it. You’ll be a lot happier. Try concentrating on real problems like North Korea and stuff like that.

    1. It is nonetheless true that within this interpretation, Joe President’s bank could lend a dollar to (let’s say) Vladimir Putin, and accept a payment of a billion dollars in principal plus interest. While this would not be a bribe under the current definition, I think we can all identify that it really is one.

      This is not Trump’s fault. It is Congress’s responsibility to write the ethics laws. There is an Ethics in Government Act, but it was amended in 1989 specifically to exclude the President and VP (!!) There are currently no laws compelling a President to rid himself of a conflict.

      We may not like Trump’s continual use of the Presidency as an entrepreneurial activity, but there is simply no law or Constitutional clause forbidding it.

  3. This is just greed for greeds sake.

    Where are the people (I seem to remember a saying – “for the people” being important in the US constitution), both within the government and without, with the balls to say enough is enough. Who will band togsther and call out the corruption and obvious insidious nature in which this President is dividing you guys.

    All the while he has pulled down your pants, bent you over and is slapping your ass while you scream for more, laughing his ass aff while screwing yours.

    Nixon would be looking at this guy and be thinking, wow, I could have done so much more, I was an complete amateur at this… Clinton, is thinking he could have grabbed all the interns by the pussy while his cock was hanging out and would still be elected a second term.

    The brazen greed and corruption has annealed your senses and now he can do anything and never be called out on it.

    Well done, the depths of depravity you have allowed your government to sink to, all while bent over, is astounding.

    I am only so concerned because I can see many democracies going this way… The slow decay of a once noble endeavour, now corrupted by unadulterated greed, people looking the other way cause I am alright Jack, it continues to astound me.

  4. Da fuk are you guys smoking over there?

    When did it become aplropriate to condone bribery and sell the government to the highest bidder?

    Is this Venezuela or Malaysia?

    You guys are a laughing stock, and it looks likely you will elect that vile orange troll doll for another 4 years.

    This is how revolutions start… I will bring the popcorn and watch from a safe distance.

  5. “long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official”

    i.e., as long as you are a RICH federal official.

    These are just vile people being propped up by a bunch of stupid ones.

  6. OK, I have to say I was startled at this until I realized there had to be a typographical error here, and that you meant to say you ARE kidding. Given that, this is hilarious! Keep up the great comedy!

    Watch those typos, though – there are people crazy enough to believe this, even though anyone with a lick of sense could see that only someone who was admitting their own corruption would propose it.

Comments are closed.