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
Editorials & Other Articles
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 ForumsDoes the "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution need to be codified?
Since it is in the Constitution, one might assume that it is already "codified".
But, maybe that is something the Democrats need to put on their very long to-do list?

5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does the "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution need to be codified? (Original Post)
kentuck
7 hrs ago
OP
Maybe amended to say something like "...no we're really serious about self-dealing"
harumph
7 hrs ago
#1
harumph
(3,559 posts)1. Maybe amended to say something like "...no we're really serious about self-dealing"
Fiendish Thingy
(24,581 posts)2. It has no enforcement mechanism
So codification would be helpful, but not a comprehensive solution.
Killing the filibuster and expanding the court is the only way to truly address the gaping loopholes in presidential accountability.
A simple or else would do. This man has trod on so many "elses" that I am ashamed. I just don't know what I can do.
"
paleotn
(23,118 posts)4. A start.
But short of a wholesale re-writing of government, I don't see how codifying anything would stop the executive branch bent on breaking the law. Our recent unpleasantness certainly speaks to that.
The Antifederalists fears have become reality.
During the ratification debates, Antifederalists charged that the President would become an elected monarch, that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity.
Sounds kind of familiar.
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/
The world those many compromises were designed to protect no longer exists, and they're being exploited just as some founders feared they would. Time for a complete rewrite. If you think that's impossible, well, we've done hard things before. We paper over this disaster and take the easy way out at our own peril.
usonian
(27,295 posts)5. Laws are merely suggestions when overlooked.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=21342990
The presidential emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but as recent events show, the Constitution is being bent, folded, spindled and shredded by cronies in black nightgowns.
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-emoluments-clause
Insider trading is legislated separately, if legislation still matters.
The presidential emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but as recent events show, the Constitution is being bent, folded, spindled and shredded by cronies in black nightgowns.
https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-the-emoluments-clause
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other object or service of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:
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 the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The Constitution also contains a domestic emoluments clause (Article II, 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.
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 the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The Constitution also contains a domestic emoluments clause (Article II, 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.
Insider trading is legislated separately, if legislation still matters.