Self Expression Magazine


Posted on the 30 December 2016 by Martingevans
To the Editor
In all the discussion about Mr. Trump's potential conflicts of interest with respect to the emoluments clause, commentators have been silent on one issue: the second part of the clause; the piece that says "without the consent of Congress." What does this mean? Does it mean that at the start of Mr. Trump's term, Congress can give blanket consent to all emoluments from any source for the whole four year term? Or does it men that Congress will have to consent to each emolument as soon as it is deposited in one of Mr. Trump's personal or corporate bank accounts; if so, Congress will have no time for any other legislation. Or perhaps there is a middle ground with some emoluments receiving blanket permission while others have to be permitted individually. Where will the line be drawn? Perhaps Mr. Trump can avoid triggering the emoluments clause. An emolument is defined as a profit gained from services rendered. With some creative accounting, perhaps involving paying down debt, Mr. Trump could reduce the profits from his overseas activities to a very small amount and then assign those profits to the Federal government. Then there would be no need to gain the consent of Congress
Sent to New York Times

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog