It is difficult to consider these issues without emotions caused by the specific people involved, Trump, Obama the Clintons, etc. I am concerned when anyone that has accomplished success in private life is barred from holding public office without sacrificing their personal assets. America was an agrarian economy when Washington became president and he owned a large plantation. Some of his "assets" were even human beings yet his honesty and integrity gave creditability to the new nation and kept it together through the turbulent period of gestation. He didn't divest Mt Vernon or any of his other assets. Rightly or wrongly, the most important activity in the US is business. The actions of the government impacts business in every way. It would seem that sometime we might benefit having a leader that knew something about business and not just be a professional politician. Currently we are being lectured on economic policy by a bunch of hacks that have never managed a lemonade stand.

I wish the writer who claimed overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered with the 2016 election would state that evidence.
Everything that I have read said Russia hacked ,
came from an unnamed official. What did they hack Hillary's private server.? What a surprise if so.
Is it because now the FBI agree's?
The people think voting machines were hacked an votes were change Do? In the Michigan recall many precincts in Clinton's favor couldn't be recounted because of irregularities, mostly because to many votes counted for the number of voters.

The so called "blind trust" that people believe somehow prevents influencing our Chief Executive is a farce. Any investor is going to work to make the client wealthier by choosing healthy investments for the blind trust. I don't believe for a second that the investor won't be influenced by trends resulting from the President's decisions, which a business savvy President like Trump would be conscious of. The only way to insure absolute security from potential legal influence would be to require the President to give away all of his or her personal wealth.

Even CEOs or board chairmen of companies don't always control the decision making process of a business. Shareholders and investors often drive the process. Removing Trump from the decision making process for all of his businesses is one part of reducing the possibility of undue foreign influence. Another could be to create (if they don't already exist) stock with no voting privileges and place his interest there. Premium shares without voting do exist. There are other mechanisms that can make it hard to induce influence without demanding the President divest himself of all wealth, but for the global, diverse Trump empire it isn't easy, which is why it's taking longer than Trump desired to announce the details of the plan.

The Clinton Foundation investigation by the FBI is still underway, and I suspect when AG Sessions comes into office the pace will pick up. Right now the pending administration is trying to distance Trump himself from any Clinton prosecution so it doesn't appear to be partisan persecution.

All we have to go by is how he will act as president. Too late to disavow him now, as the Stupidos who are trying to sway votes in the Electoral College. As in everything, what counts is what he does. So far, not bad. One can be sure that every move he makes will be put under a microscope by the Left.

Your right...hiltery and billy bob too...vilolated the law big time. However, I don't see how trumpet is going to comply other than signing over or selling his businesses to a natural party.

I did catch: The "Prophylactic" rule and wondered if anyone made a big enough prophylactic to cover all of washington dc.

Both sets of questions are valid, and important. It is falling into a false dichotomy to declare for one side or against another in this. (And it is not "fake news." It is an opinion.)

I am pretty good at the Constitution. I just gave an edition of The Federalist Papers to a co-worker because it has the best concordance to the Constitution that know of among the many editions of this collection. But I am also sure that most people here think that they, too, know the Constitution. The touchstone, however, are the discussions we have here that are long on opinion and short on citations to articles and sections.

So, too, in this case. I do not find a violation of the Emoluments clause in either the Trump or Clinton enterprises. But that is because I keep to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

These American scientists, who are employed by Federal agencies, are members of the Royal Society of the UK.

AXELROD, Dr Julius.[1979] National Institute of Mental Health, Building 36, Room 3A-15, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20592, USA. (Fax: +1 (301) 402-1748). Nobel Laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 1970.

PRESS, Professor Frank. [1985] Formerly President of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Suite #616 South, 2500 Virginia Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20037-1901, USA. (Tel: +1 (202) 342-2025; email: fpress@nas.edu; Fax: +1 (202) 342-2407)

Over 50 others are employed at foundations and universities. Some of those schools, such as the University of Texas, are tax-funded at the state level and also receive federal funds. You might argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution allows a state governor to be name a foreign prince. I am not so sure that the clause could not be incorporated to the states, as were many Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

http://vrijmetselaarsgilde.eu/Maconni...

The humor in the award aside, should the Emoluments clause have prevented Nobel Peace Prizes to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama... or any similar prize to any American scientist from a federally-funded program?

If Trump uses his position as POTUS for personal gain by virtue of granting special government favors only available to him by virtue of his position, to foreign governments or nationals, then the clause seems applicable. If on the other hand he is enriched by foreigners because of his personal business relations/dealings standing alone on their own, without government influence then the spirit of the law seems to me to be upheld.

Yes the diversion tactic is working, because the Republicans are largely incapable of making the moral argument and all too sensitive to the media narratives. Also, many of them are defensive because their hands are not clean either.

The Clintons' blatant conflicts of interest pretty much insulate Trump from Constitutional objections to his business dealings. After taking office, Trump will almost certainly engage in whatever business behavior he deems appropriate.

I understand the common sense reason behind the emoluments clause, but in the case of Trump the only image that nags me is the salivating of the looters as Hank Rearden was forced to liquidate his businesses.

Indeed, the looters are lining up for the feast. A powerful and convincing argument if looked at from a certain slant. I read the entire paper, and particularly enjoyed the references to the Founders and their original intent. Otherwise, the vast majority of sources were from someone named Teachout and his book(s), The New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico. I do understand db's socialist concerns!!

Why are we discussing an obvious liberal last straw comment, just as they sink due to total moral collapse? Why are we wasting our energy? The libtards' "think tanks" have really become safe spaces for adolescents; let them blow hot air all they want.

I know, right?? The truth is out there.

It might be the free market at work. "... forcing foreign governments to pay to talk to her as Sec. of State." I mean, money would be one way to measure just how important this discussion is, as opposed to a social call... If you want a capitalist government, you should think through what that means... Maybe, like the income tax and direct election of the Senate, the Emolument Clause should not be in a new, Objective constitution.

(And what about John Paul Jones serving in Russia? ... or the Flying Tigers working for China? ... In fact, many American soldiers received military decorations from foreign governments. Gen. George S. Patton was granted 14 of them, Gen. Colin Powell seven, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis three.)

I had to look up emolument