Is our Constitution strong enough?

I was really referring to your earlier post which read:
"We now have a duly elected president who is in violation of the emoluments clause [WRONG #1, despite what USA Today claims.] as he uses his office to enhance his business interests, who is under investigation by intelligence agencies for ties to Russia [WRONG #2], who has fired an FBI director while that Director is engaged in an investigation of the presidency [WRONG #3], and who seems to have failed to vet his cabinet picks [I have no idea what you mean]."

As to your examples, with a big stretch some might be construed as a violation of the emoluments clause but not if anything occurred before Trump became president. There is nothing in law or the constitution that says a president has to divest any business interest, a bunch of guys saying he should not-with-standing. But more to the point, despite many wishing and hoping and praying it so, the emoluments clause says nothing (like nada, nil, zero) about the president. The president is named in this area only in Article 2 which says he cannot receive payments from the States. The emoluments clause does not apply to elected officials, though to avoid confusion it says Congress can exclude themselves.

 

That business dealings are a gift from a foreign government is extremely sketchy reasoning which would not stand up to judicial review.

 

Not so much they don’t understand. They (I hope) are scared. We can hope that the Trump legacy will be the beginning of the end for the Republican/Democrat monopoly. If that happens then i will call the Trump fiasco a success.

My fear however is that instead of rejecting a system where all we get are RNC/DNC front men the faithful of the 2 parties will cling even tighter to the failed system because real change can be scary.

 

MONEY IS MONEY. IT IS NOT SPEECH! That whole thing is a crooked attempt to grant the rich a bigger voice than the rest of us and you gullibly swallowed the propaganda as though it is in your interest. IT ISN'T!

 

And you and Tog are expert enough to know better, eh? A head of state would be inclined to stay at one of Trumps hotels at a very, very high cost if he wanted a favorable meeting with Trump. And guess whose wealth is increase by such a visit in those hotels. Can you guess? It's contrary to the Constitution. And the right wants to pretend it isn't.

 

How do you know that? Are you a lawyer or are you just listening to Fox?

 

I understood fully.

 

I never said anything about an investigation. Why you're making that reach could only be to deflect from what you've been called out on.

You made a claim with no evidence and then asked someone to provide evidence of their claim. That was hypocritical, period. Your desperate attempt to dance around that is amusing. We're done.

 

You say this, fully aware you know you cannot show this to be even remotely true, because you never once considered for yourself the veracity of the claim.

 

No, there probably won't be a knock on your door in the middle of the night. Being a leftist isn't necessarily a crime, but it does mean that you're biased against Trump, so people are going to weigh that bias against your... outrage.

Remember conservatives being angry with Obama? Did you take any of that seriously? Probably with a few grains of salt, at best. Same applies here, but it's on the other foot. That means you have to work at formulating a coherent rational argument. Mere links and anger aren't good enough.

 

Neither side will seriously prosecute the other, especially not over money. They all feed from the same hands. Even the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a dog and pony show waste of time purely for the entertainment of the people. They don't go after each other. Instead they let the media fan the flames and stir up the folks to hate and go after each other.

 

Sorry, SCOTUS has repeatedly claimed your opinion wrong. Deal with it.

 

But there isn't any other way to prove violation of the Constitution or any law other than an investigation and/or trial and anyone with a brain should know that. So your objections are nonsensical.

 

Yes, but consider this: Just about every day he comes out with a new charge to add to the Articles of Impeachment. I mean, just yesterday he admitted to Obstruction of Justice when he said that the Russian investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey. So Congress can wait a bit to see how many more High Crimes and Misdemeanors he admits to. Because I'm sure that, as soon as the Impeachment process begins, he'll have a Constitutional attorney by his side at all times telling him word by word what to say.

 

In post #10 I said "He also promised his businesses would all be put in a blind trust."

For support of possible violations, check post #24.

 

And it is BS as anyone with a brain knows. And if they repeatedly dealt with it, why did they have to make yet another ruling?

Money is money.

 

Because...court case. You don't understand how this works? Ah, the state of civics education these days. Sigh.

 

I saw your support. You read the stories and not once thought to question them for yourself.

 

I don't believe that lefties care about much more than obtaining power.

 

I knopw the difference between money and speech. What someone says doesn't change the facts.

 

You're not qualified to pass judgement on them.

 

That would be your extreme partisan bias speaking.

 

Then the fake news would be used to cover for her.

 

If that is the emolument clause, then it says he is not to receive any any increase or emolument from THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY OF THEM. Which would be compensation from the stated government bodies.

Doesn't seem to involve anything outside of government.

 

Check Article !, Section 9 at the very end.