DOES THE CONSTITUTION FORBID OFFICE HOLDERS FROM HAVING INTEREST IN PRIVATE BUSINESS
SHOULD ONLY CAREER POLITICIANS BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR OFFICE?
Ever since Donald Trump has been elected president, there have been accusations of self-interest. The Emolument Clause , Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 8 is most often sited, What does it say exactly?
"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 Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
The plain purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country's leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats.
"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 Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
The plain purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country's leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats.
This is often cited in regards to Trump and his family owning hotels and resorts were foreign leaders stay while in the United States. Suits regarding this have twice been rejected by the courts. There is nothing in the constitution that would apply to normal business that is not connected to the federal Government. Some opponents of the President believe one must liquidate all private business holdings to hold public office. This is ridiculousness.
There is a second Emoluments clause, refereed to the"Domestic Emoluments clause", in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7.
"Which prohibits the president from receiving any "Emolument" from the federal government or the states beyond "a compensation " for his "Services" as chief executive."
This may be something that is less clear. If you were the owner or had an interest in a defense contracting business. It would be unlikely that your company could engage in business with the government. It would at least require competitive bidding and scrutiny.
There was much uproar on Trump's announcement that he proposes to hold the next G7 meeting at his company owned resort in Miami, Fl.," Doral International". I am sure there would have been much scrutiny, law suits, House hearings, and accusations. Within a few days of the announcement, the idea was withdrawn. Much would have had to do with who was going to pay for this? I don't have an answer. Would the price have been in excess of what the cost would be somewhere else? Should there be competitive bidding? It would have eventually been decided by the court.
Whether this was a serious proposal or just another baiting of the Democrats and the media we may never know. One thing for sure, Trump has been known to place an issue into the debate that will keep his name in the news at the expense of his political opponents.
"Which prohibits the president from receiving any "Emolument" from the federal government or the states beyond "a compensation " for his "Services" as chief executive."
This may be something that is less clear. If you were the owner or had an interest in a defense contracting business. It would be unlikely that your company could engage in business with the government. It would at least require competitive bidding and scrutiny.
There was much uproar on Trump's announcement that he proposes to hold the next G7 meeting at his company owned resort in Miami, Fl.," Doral International". I am sure there would have been much scrutiny, law suits, House hearings, and accusations. Within a few days of the announcement, the idea was withdrawn. Much would have had to do with who was going to pay for this? I don't have an answer. Would the price have been in excess of what the cost would be somewhere else? Should there be competitive bidding? It would have eventually been decided by the court.
Whether this was a serious proposal or just another baiting of the Democrats and the media we may never know. One thing for sure, Trump has been known to place an issue into the debate that will keep his name in the news at the expense of his political opponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment
comments and opinions published at discretion of editor