President Donald J. Trump

[Corona Kitty]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the verbal equivalent of a dog licking his ass.

No, myke. I'm just bored with you because you got nuthin. No humor. No talent. No voice. Nuthin.

awww lol

[Dr. MD MD]

awww lol

Yep, now run along and continue counting your views on YouTube. 

[Corona Kitty]

Yep, now run along and continue counting your views on YouTube. 

nah ill follow the jew

[Dr. MD MD]

nah ill follow the jew

You're so scary...NOT! 

[136 or 142]

I never wrote the U.S civil service had 60 employees in 1890, I wrote the text book covered the United States up to 1890 and I wrote that the entire Federal Government (I should have written Federal Civil Service) had something like 60 employees.  In my case that was just poor writing because I wrote right after "they would have expected to be career civil servants" i.e not elected politicians.  I also wrote that "Congress had several hundred members"  so, clearly I could not have been referring to elected Representatives.

Both members of the House elected by (some) of the public and members of the Senate elected by State Legislatures.

[PB the Deplorable]

fawkin savage over here.

Aw, here's Myke looking for approval.  What up bro?

[PB the Deplorable]

... I never wrote the U.S civil service had 60 employees in 1890, I wrote the text book covered the United States up to 1890 and I wrote that the entire Federal Government (I should have written Federal Civil Service) had something like 60 employees.  In my case that was just poor writing because I wrote right after "they would have expected to be career civil servants" i.e not elected politicians.  I also wrote that "Congress had several hundred members"  so, clearly I could not have been referring to elected Representatives.

Who cares how many people worked for the government in 1890?  Seriously.  All I did was point out an irrelevent ''fact'' you cited was wrong.  Very clearly obviously wrong.  Which you've now agreed with.  All those Congress folks had secretaries and other staff, as did the civil servants.  We had a military, post office, federal judges and staff, on and on.  We had a certain number of ambassadors, and their staff.  60 federal employees was absurd.  The larger question is why that didn't occur to you when you wrote it.

Here's your problem.  You can't see the big picture, you don't think things through logically, and you have no sense of perspective.  You plow through tons of facts and information, but aren't able to separate what is important from what isn't, and are very susceptable to selection bias and false information. 

This is how you you developed an obsession with germs, and reached the point of being a danger to yourself and others - you've transferred what got you into trouble with that into the political arena.   

[PB the Deplorable]

Given that the Emoluments Clause is in Article I, it seems it should only apply to Congress and its employees, but this is not how it has been interpreted, as it has been interpreted to only apply to the Executive, which is clear since Congress makes its own rules to regulate itself.

As I've frequently stated, for all of the veneration of the Constitution a good deal of it is as clear as mud and this is another example.  The Emoluments Clause is written in the section that regulates the Legislature, yet the Constitution itself makes it clear that they were not referring to the legislators themselves but to those holding unelected Civil Office.  Maybe they just meant civil servants who work for Congress but that's not what they state in the Federalist Papers and that's not how it's been interpreted...

Yes, the House and Senate each make their own rules that apply to their procedures, and for punishing and expelling members.  But they can't overrule the limits placed on them by the Constitution.

Back to Artilce I.  Yes, most of it applies to the Congress.  But not all of it applies only to them.  Section 1 creates the House and Senate.  Section 2 discusses certain issues surrounding the House, and Section 3 does the same for the Senate.  Sections 4-8 discuss eligiblity, manner of elections, compensation, legislative process, specific and general areas of responsibility,and so on. 

The final 2 Sections are a little different.  Section 9 spells out certain limits, but these are not limited to the Congress - since Congress is the legislative branch, they are listed here to ensure Congress passes no legislation that conflicts with these items, but they also apply to the executive branch the the extent they are relevent to it.  Confirming Article I applies beyond just the Congress, Section 10 spells out certain limits that apply to the states - specifically powers independent states would normally have, but have been delegated to the Congress and the federal government. 


So yes, the Emolument Clause in Section 9 applies to any (all) office holders.  Just as it says.  the opinions of various people over time don't really matter - the Supreme Court would have the last say, even though being a politial body they often rule incorrectly.

[Corona Kitty]

Aw, here's Myke looking for approval.  What up bro?

OH shut up stupid, you've always been my hero.

[136 or 142]

Who cares how many people worked for the government in 1890?  Seriously.  All I did was point out an irrelevent ''fact'' you cited was wrong.  Very clearly obviously wrong.  Which you've now agreed with.  All those Congress folks had secretaries and other staff, as did the civil servants.  We had a military, post office, federal judges and staff, on and on.  We had a certain number of ambassadors, and their staff.  60 federal employees was absurd.  The larger question is why that didn't occur to you when you wrote it.

Here's your problem.  You can't see the big picture, you don't think things through logically, and you have no sense of perspective.  You plow through tons of facts and information, but aren't able to separate what is important from what isn't, and are very susceptable to selection bias and false information. 

This is how you you developed an obsession with germs, and reached the point of being a danger to yourself and others - you've transferred what got you into trouble with that into the political arena.   

It's funny, you criticize me, but you can't even read straight.  I never mentioned 1890 in regards to the number of civil servants.  I twice wrote about at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  The post office is a good point, but that gets to whether we are discussing a direct government employee or somebody like a school teacher who works for the 'broader public sector.'  (Of course, a school teacher in the United States isn't supposed to be a federal employee, but that's another matter.)


Of course, teachers, I presume postal workers... were all full time employees (as were direct civil servants) so, the idea that they would work for the government part of the year and then go back to their farms or businesses as was expected of an elected politician doesn't really apply.  So, while it is true that some teachers likely also operated farms or other small businesses, the vast majority of them would not have been expected by anybody to violate the Emoluments Clause.

The entire U.S military (army) in 1789 consisted of 718 people. Again, I would expect these were full time year round employees.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

This is the actual text from the book I was referring to "The Great Republic, A History of the American People"
"The inherited Federalist government establishment was minuscule by modern standards and was small even by 18th century European Standards.  In 1801, the headquarters of the War Department, for example, consisted of only the secretary, an accountant, fourteen clerks and two messengers.  The Attorney General did not even have a clerk."

Yes, there were some diplomats (again, a full time job) and other employees at the Foreign Affairs Department, and there was also the Treasury Department.

This was the initial Treasury Department: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be a Department of Treasury, in which shall be the following officers, namely: a Secretary of the Treasury, to be deemed head of the department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Register, and an Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, which assistant shall be appointed by the said Secretary.  Maybe it had a lot more accountants than the headquarters of the Department of War, but I doubt it had as many clerks. 

I don't think 60 direct civil servants is all that far off.
It seems the concept of the 'broader public sector' may be foreign to Americans, so I can see where the mix-up comes from.

[136 or 142]

Yes, the House and Senate each make their own rules that apply to their procedures, and for punishing and expelling members.  But they can't overrule the limits placed on them by the Constitution.

Back to Artilce I.  Yes, most of it applies to the Congress.  But not all of it applies only to them.  Section 1 creates the House and Senate.  Section 2 discusses certain issues surrounding the House, and Section 3 does the same for the Senate.  Sections 4-8 discuss eligiblity, manner of elections, compensation, legislative process, specific and general areas of responsibility,and so on. 

The final 2 Sections are a little different.  Section 9 spells out certain limits, but these are not limited to the Congress - since Congress is the legislative branch, they are listed here to ensure Congress passes no legislation that conflicts with these items, but they also apply to the executive branch the the extent they are relevent to it.  Confirming Article I applies beyond just the Congress, Section 10 spells out certain limits that apply to the states - specifically powers independent states would normally have, but have been delegated to the Congress and the federal government. 


So yes, the Emolument Clause in Section 9 applies to any (all) office holders.  Just as it says.  the opinions of various people over time don't really matter - the Supreme Court would have the last say, even though being a politial body they often rule incorrectly.

You're so funny when you go into 'teacher' mode, hopeless retard.  No, I'm sorry you are simply wrong on this.  We know that members of Congress aren't subject to the Emoluments Clause, because they're subject to a different laws,  one of which has been used at least once.  This is why nobody, not even your new hero Dershowitz, mentions the Emoluments Clause with respect to Congress.

Congressman charged with taking bribes around the world

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two years after federal agents reported finding $90,000 in a freezer in his Washington home, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson has been charged with a global campaign to solicit bribes, obstruct justice and engage in racketeering, Justice Department officials said Monday.

Jefferson is the first U.S. official ever charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which prohibits corporate bribery.

The charges are based on 11 schemes in which Jefferson allegedly solicited bribes for himself and his family from government and business officials in the United States, Nigeria, Botswana, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome e Principe, U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg said at an afternoon news conference.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/jefferson/

You can even search all over the internet yourself to see if this act or any predecessor was brought in because subjecting members of Congress to the Emoluments Clause was too difficult and you won't find anything. Article 1 Section 6 of the U.S Constitution makes it very clear that the Emoluments Clause was not referring to elected Congresspeople.

And it's not as if the Emoluments Clause was unheard of prior to the election of Trump:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/04/02/federal-employees-warned-to-watch-out-for-emoluments/?utm_term=.9f8d2a9cf2e0

If you weren't such a hopeless retard with an obsession at trying to show the world you aren't a hopeless retard you'd concede on this, just as you'd concede that practically everything you write here is brain-dead.

[21st Century Man]

If I weren't such a hopeless retard with an obsession at trying to show the world I am not a hopeless retard I'd concede on this, just as I'd concede that practically everything I write here is brain-dead.

Geeez Louise! You described yourself very well there and I can't add anything more.  Well-done!!! 

[PB the Deplorable]

You're so funny when you go into 'teacher' mode, hopeless retard.  No, I'm sorry you are simply wrong on this.  We know that members of Congress aren't subject to the Emoluments Clause, because they're subject to a different law, which has been used a number of times.  This is why nobody, not even your new hero Dershowitz mentions the Emoluments Clause with respect to Congress.

Congressman charged with taking bribes around the world

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two years after federal agents reported finding $90,000 in a freezer in his Washington home, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson has been charged with a global campaign to solicit bribes, obstruct justice and engage in racketeering, Justice Department officials said Monday.

Jefferson is the first U.S. official ever charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which prohibits corporate bribery.

The charges are based on 11 schemes in which Jefferson allegedly solicited bribes for himself and his family from government and business officials in the United States, Nigeria, Botswana, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome e Principe, U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg said at an afternoon news conference. (Watch prosecutors describe the alleged schemes Video)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/jefferson/

You can even search all over the internet yourself to see if this act or any predecessor was brought in because getting convictions on the Emoluments Clause for members of Congress was too difficult and you won't find anything.  Section 6 of the U.S Constitution makes it very clear that the Emoluments Clause was not referring to elected Congresspeople.

If you weren't such a hopeless retard with an obsession at trying to show the world you aren't a hopeless retard but are somehow actually an intelligent person, you'd concede on that, just as you'd concede that practically everything you write here is brain-dead.

First off, it's Article I, Section 2, Clause 6 - not ''Section 6''. 

''No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.''

This has to do with separation of powers, and makes members of Congress ineligible to hold any federal office during their term in Congress.  So, nothing to do with foreign source emoluments, no conflict, one doesn't affect the other.


The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that was passed into law prohibits bribbery, as you mention.  That doesn't conflict with, supercede, or create a version of the foreign emoluments clause for the Congress either. 

Simply because no one has been charged, or because it's difficult to prosecute, does not mean the foreign emoluments prohibition doesn't apply to the Congress.

Again, go back to the definition of emoluments:  Compensation for services or from employment or office.  Not bribery, not side jobs in the executive branch - it is specifically in regards to being in the employ or receiving payment for services from a foreign government.  Something completely legal if not for this clause.  Perhaps the reason no one has been charged or tried on this is because no one does it so openly as to be caught, and it's easier to just take bribes. If you are saying it's perfectly fine for a member of Congress to take a side job with a foreign government, why don't any of them do so?  Why hire an agent in DC when some country could hire a Congressman as their agent instead?


Have you considered the reason Dershowitz hasn't mentioned the application of this to member of Congress is because no one is currently accusing them of anything, and he was there to talk about the accusations made against Trump?  Why would he bring up the Congress?

Again, big picture.  Try to take a step back and think about whether what you are saying makes sense

[136 or 142]

Geeez Louise! You described yourself very well there and I can't add anything more.  Well-done!!! 

Glad I could please you.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8d4cp09zWs

[PB the Deplorable]

Geeez Louise! You described yourself very well there and I can't add anything more.  Well-done!!! 

Imagine being a psychologist and working with these behaviors all day

[136 or 142]

First off, it's Article I, Section 2, Clause 6 - not ''Section 6''. 

''No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.''

This has to do with separation of powers, and makes members of Congress ineligible to hold any federal office during their term in Congress.  So, nothing to do with foreign source emoluments, no conflict, one doesn't affect the other.


The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was passed into law prohibits bribbery, as you mention.  That doesn't conflict with, supercede, or create a version of the foreign emoluments clause for the Congress either. 

Simply because no one has been charged, or because it's difficult to prosecute, does not mean the foreign emoluments prohibition doesn't apply to the Congress.

Again, go back to the definition of emoluments:  Compensation for services or from employment or office.  Not bribery, not side jobs in the executive branch - it's in regards to being in the employ or receiving payment for services from a foreign government.  Perhaps the reason no one has been charged or tried on this is because no one does it so openly as to be caught, and it's easier to just take bribes. If you are saying it's perfectly fine for a member of Congress to take a side job with a foreign government, why don't any of them do so?  Why hire an agent in DC when some country could hire a Congressman as their agent instead?


Have you considered the reason Dershowitz hasn't mentioned the application of this to Congress is because no one is currently accusing them of anything, and he was there to talk about the accusations made against Trump?  Why would he bring up the Congress?

Again, big picture.  Try to take a step back and think about whether what you are saying makes sense

It's actually Section 6 Clause 2.  You can't even get your corrections correct, hopeless retard.  (There isn't even a 6th clause in Section 2, Article 1)

No, you're not correct.  Section 6 Clause 2 spells out that the reference to "Office" in the Emoluments Clause Section 9 Clause 8 (both of Article 1) was not referring to Congresspeople.  (Or 'makes it clear', since Section 6 naturally came before section 9)

At best, all you're capable of doing, hopeless retard, is mindlessly regurgitating cliches: "That refers to Separation of Powers, durr, durr, durrr."  Yes, but what powers were being separated?  Congresspeople from holding the "Office" referred to in Section 9 Clause 8 while they are also members of Congress.  Talk about being unable to see any picture, yet alone the big picture.

This is why there has never been any mention of members of Congress being subject to the Emoluments Clause.  (At least not since Alexander Hamilton.)

[PB the Deplorable]

It's actually Section 6 Clause 2.  You can't even get your corrections correct, hopeless retard.  (There isn't even a 6th clause in Section 2, Article 1)

No, you're not correct.  Section 6 Clause 2 spells out that the reference to "Office" in the Emoluments Clause Section 9 Clause 8 (both of Article 1) was not referring to Congresspeople.

At best, all you're capable of doing, hopeless retard, is mindlessly regurgitating cliches: "That refers to Separation of Powers, durr, durr, durrr."  Yes, but what powers were being separated?  Congresspeople from holding the "Office" referred to in Section 9 Clause 8 while they are also members of Congress.  Talk about being unable to see any picture, yet alone the big picture.

This is why there has never been any mention of members of Congress being subject to the Emoluments Clause.  (At least not since Alexander Hamilton.)

Your ignorance has worn me down.  If you can't cite the Article, Section, and Clause, then I have to guess what the hell you're talking about.  Which is difficult when you don't really know either.

But I agree with you - you find a good deal of it is as clear as mud, and it shows. 

[136 or 142]

Your ignorance has worn me down.  If you can't cite the Article, Section, and Clause, then I have to guess what the hell you're talking about.  Which is difficult when you don't really know either.

But I agree with you - you find a good deal of it is as clear as mud, and it shows.

I cited the Article, Section and Clause.   It's not my fault you don't even know your own nation's Constitution.

http://constitutionus.com/

here is another example, if you believe that first example is 'fake news' or whatever it is you mindlessly chant.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec6.html

Look at those, see which is described as 'Section' and then check the numbering and you'll see that you're the ignorant one, hopeless retard.

It's possible your 'brain' is filled with mud as well as rocks, but it doesn't really matter.

You get something wrong and you won't even admit it, but attempt to blame the other person.  You're completely pathetic, completely unethical and a brain-dead moron, and this is why I prefer to have nothing to do with you.

I'd appreciate it if others with sense around here would ignore you as I try to do, but I can't tell other people what to do.

[Jackstar]

the Emoluments Clause

[Up All Night]

President Donald J. Trump arrives on AF1 in S. Korea and departs on Marine 1 to meet with the Military.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_7LJZBq2R0

[136 or 142]

There's no sound to that. I was hoping for some insight.

[PB the Deplorable]

I cited the Article, Section and Clause...

You really want to do this?

Your original post only mentioned ''Section 6'', which you can see in my post where I quoted you.  I had to guess what you meant, point that out, and unfortunately reversed the section and clause when I had to cite it for you.  You then went back and updated your post, but still didn't get it right either.

But the rest of the content of my post was correct.  Your attempts to confuse and dissemble have failed.  I still don't quite get why you think members of Congress are exempt from the foreign emoluments clause.  ''No person holding any office'' doesn't sound like just the president to me.  It they meant just the president, they would have said so.  If they meant just the president, it would have been in Article II.  That there are various other clauses and various other laws, covering various other issues is irrelevent.

Posting that some parts of the Constitution are ''clear as mud'' to you doesn't absolve your shoddy thinking, although it helps explain it.  Were you this resistent with your germaphobia treatments?  Worse? 

[Gd5150]

Your ignorance has worn me down.

This is why it’s best to not argue directly with leftwing lemmings. Their minds work based on emotion not logic. Trying to argue with them on a logical basis is an exorcise in futility. Keep things simple, annoying, and offensive whenever possible. Let them stew in their own emotional filth.

Eventually enough of them grow up, mature, get truly educated, and leave the compound.

It is peculiar 12345678 and pudophile are never here at the same time. One leaves for a few days and the other bombards the site with lemming stupidity. It’s like a libtard tag team.

[ItsOver]

Feel the love.

[PB the Deplorable]

... It is peculiar 12345678 and pudophile are never here at the same time. One leaves for a few days and the other bombards the site with lemming stupidity. It’s like a libtard tag team.

He does seem like sort of a crazy version of Pud.

[ItsOver]

He does seem like sort of a crazy version of Pud.

It varies between a Pud on meds and a Pud not on meds.  This is for The Pud and his love for all things 'merican.



Eat it!

[=Schlyder=]

yup I figured out what 136 or 142 means... it's the dosage of Lithium his brain absorbs in mg/day

[136 or 142]

You really want to do this?

Your original post only mentioned ''Section 6'', which you can see in my post where I quoted you.  I had to guess what you meant, point that out, and unfortunately reversed the section and clause when I had to cite it for you.  You then went back and updated your post, but still didn't get it right either.

But the rest of the content of my post was correct.  Your attempts to confuse and dissemble have failed.  I still don't quite get why you think members of Congress are exempt from the foreign emoluments clause.  ''No person holding any office'' doesn't sound like just the president to me.  It they meant just the president, they would have said so.  If they meant just the president, it would have been in Article II.  That there are various other clauses and various other laws, covering various other issues is irrelevent.

Posting that some parts of the Constitution are ''clear as mud'' to you doesn't absolve your shoddy thinking, although it helps explain it.  Were you this resistent with your germaphobia treatments?  Worse?

1.Except your explanation here makes no sense because you had previously yourself posted  Section 6 Clause 2 here before I mentioned "Section 6."  So it was clear that you already knew that's what I was referring to.   I don't know why you are even attempting to lie about this now, other than you obviously 'think' it puts me in some bad light.  But, your own posts show you are sleazily lying about this.

2.Except as Section 6 Clause 2 makes clear the 'Office' (not the 'office') referred to in Section 9 Clause 8 is not referring to Congress.  If you are tying in some back door way to get me to state that the 'Office' does not refer to any elected person including the President (or the Vice President) I would personally agree that's possible and there does seem to be some current debate on that, except from what I've read on this from constitutional lawyers and from my readings of the Federalist Papers on this, it does seem clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended for the President to be subject to the Emoluments Clause. However Section 6 Clause 2 also makes it clear they did not mean to include the elected members of Congress as subject to the Emoluments Clause.

If you genuinely don't understand how Section 6 Clause 2 does that, that does not surprise me, because you are, indeed, a hopeless retard.  All you have to do though is see that the term the 'Office' is used in both Section 6 Clause 2 in stating that 'no person holding any Office  under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in Office.  This second reference of Office is a reference to a person holding a position in the Executive Branch and so, as you had previously mentioned when you quoted this Clause here, refers to Separation of Powers.

Section 9 Clause 8 (The Emoluments Clause) then again refers to those holding any Office  If you believe that this 'Office' is different than the 'Office' mentioned in Section 6 Clause 2 then you have to concede that at least this section of the Constitution is poorly written.  My view, and the view of the Constitutional experts I've read, is that the Office referred to in both cases refers to the same Office.

I think I've explained this quite enough.  If you still genuinely can't figure it out, it's not my fault you're a hopeless retard.

[ACE of CLUBS]

  This is for The Pud and his love for all things 'merican.



Eat it!

Canada has been exporting 'hog sphincters' to the U.S.A. for decades ..... labeled 'Canadian Bacon.
A nice income, and a wonderful source of amusement ......
Eat up Yanks ..... yum, yum .....