Trump will be violating the Constitution immediately upon taking office

[whichphilosophy]

What you say about the President's responsibility is correct if he doesn't hold up the constitution. However the US lawmakers can propose amendments to existing provisions it disagrees with.

Amending the Constitution is serious business and takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment. Why should the US go to the trouble just so someone can legally receive rent payments from a foreign country while in office? Even if Congress and the states agreed with you, it would take months to amend the Constitution. In the interim, Trump would still be in violation. The simplest and honorable course of action is for him to sell those interests now. And then work to change the Constitution.

This is part of barrage of unsubstantiated reports being leaked all over the place. Those who believe in evidence based reporting may also get a bit fed up after a while of people issuing unsubstantiated reports from 'credible sources' which would insult the intelligence even of an orangutan (even an orange one).

Are you sure this is unsubstantiated?

Whether these are true or not they are unsubstantiated in their entirety.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hilarious to see a supporter of the principle pusher of birther nonsense, whining about unsubstantiated reports...

Just pointing out these are unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, not backed by evidence, uncorroborated, unattested, unproven, untested, not validated,unverified and other similar meanings.

 

[laughing dog]

Amending the Constitution is serious business and takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment. Why should the US go to the trouble just so someone can legally receive rent payments from a foreign country while in office? Even if Congress and the states agreed with you, it would take months to amend the Constitution. In the interim, Trump would still be in violation. The simplest and honorable course of action is for him to sell those interests now. And then work to change the Constitution.

This is part of barrage of unsubstantiated reports being leaked all over the place. Those who believe in evidence based reporting may also get a bit fed up after a while of people issuing unsubstantiated reports from 'credible sources' which would insult the intelligence even of an orangutan (even an orange one).

Are you sure this is unsubstantiated?

Whether these are true or not they are unsubstantiated in their entirety.

Since the OP is about a particular alleged violation of the Constitution, the only relevant issue is whether that allegation is substantiated. The other allegations are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Amending the Constitution is serious business and takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment. Why should the US go to the trouble just so someone can legally receive rent payments from a foreign country while in office? Even if Congress and the states agreed with you, it would take months to amend the Constitution. In the interim, Trump would still be in violation. The simplest and honorable course of action is for him to sell those interests now. And then work to change the Constitution.

This is part of barrage of unsubstantiated reports being leaked all over the place. Those who believe in evidence based reporting may also get a bit fed up after a while of people issuing unsubstantiated reports from 'credible sources' which would insult the intelligence even of an orangutan (even an orange one).

Are you sure this is unsubstantiated?

Whether these are true or not they are unsubstantiated in their entirety.

Since the OP is about a particular alleged violation of the Constitution, the only relevant issue is whether that allegation is substantiated. The other allegations are irrelevant to the discussion.

If we look at this situation regarding the constitution I stated as follows:
What you say about the President's responsibility is correct if he doesn't hold up the constitution. However the US lawmakers can propose amendments to existing provisions it disagrees with

This will apply once he takes office. Therefore the way he hands over his business interests to others including his family to run needs to be determined when he takes office. I trust this will be done through lawyers. I'm sure if this is done

If I am correct this could only be known once he is in office but there is some debate on whether handing over all his businesses to his family and others to run is sufficient to comply with the Emolument laws.

So at the moment it seems there is no evidence of him breaking the law as he hasn't taken office yet.

 

[Elixir]

If I am correct this could only be known once he is in office but there is some debate on whether handing over all his businesses to his family and others to run is sufficient to comply with the Emolument laws.

So at the moment it seems there is no evidence of him breaking the law as he hasn't taken office yet.

I am sure (though I haven't reached the conclusion ) that Trump has not clearly broken any laws - at least not so clearly that anyone is about to litigate. The beauty of it is that he will probably never have to break any laws once he's President - he can just get congress to make whateverthehell kind of con-artist scheme he wants to perpetrate "legal". That's how the Nazis did it in the 30's, and Drumpf seems to take a lot of lessons from them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well David Miscaviage is a lot like Donald Trump, mean nasty and never has to answer to anyone.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If I am correct this could only be known once he is in office but there is some debate on whether handing over all his businesses to his family and others to run is sufficient to comply with the Emolument laws.

So at the moment it seems there is no evidence of him breaking the law as he hasn't taken office yet.

I am sure (though I haven't reached the conclusion ) that Trump has not clearly broken any laws - at least not so clearly that anyone is about to litigate. The beauty of it is that he will probably never have to break any laws once he's President - he can just get congress to make whateverthehell kind of con-artist scheme he wants to perpetrate "legal". That's how the Nazis did it in the 30's, and Drumpf seems to take a lot of lessons from them.

So we agree on the first place. About the second part is somewhat subjectively speculative as using a Crystal Ball.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well David Miscaviage is a lot like Donald Trump, mean nasty and never has to answer to anyone.

Trump does answer, more than expected. His tweet has been on overdrive for the past few months.


MIscaviage?

http://tonyortega.org/2016/11/01/hi...iges-appeals-lawyer-for-the-us-supreme-court/

The second article has to be a spoof and as it is almost as off the wall the recent CIA claims.

https://www.ncscooper.com/hillary-clinton-converts-to-scientology/

 

[Elixir]

Well David Miscaviage is a lot like Donald Trump, mean nasty and never has to answer to anyone.

As head of an outfit that is dedicated to authoritarianism, and enforces it among its members, that is to be expected. I never expected such a monstrosity to rise to the US Presidency though...

 

[laughing dog]

Amending the Constitution is serious business and takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment. Why should the US go to the trouble just so someone can legally receive rent payments from a foreign country while in office? Even if Congress and the states agreed with you, it would take months to amend the Constitution. In the interim, Trump would still be in violation. The simplest and honorable course of action is for him to sell those interests now. And then work to change the Constitution.

This is part of barrage of unsubstantiated reports being leaked all over the place. Those who believe in evidence based reporting may also get a bit fed up after a while of people issuing unsubstantiated reports from 'credible sources' which would insult the intelligence even of an orangutan (even an orange one).

Are you sure this is unsubstantiated?

Whether these are true or not they are unsubstantiated in their entirety.

Since the OP is about a particular alleged violation of the Constitution, the only relevant issue is whether that allegation is substantiated. The other allegations are irrelevant to the discussion.

If we look at this situation regarding the constitution I stated as follows:
What you say about the President's responsibility is correct if he doesn't hold up the constitution. However the US lawmakers can propose amendments to existing provisions it disagrees with

This will apply once he takes office. Therefore the way he hands over his business interests to others including his family to run needs to be determined when he takes office. I trust this will be done through lawyers. I'm sure if this is done

If I am correct this could only be known once he is in office but there is some debate on whether handing over all his businesses to his family and others to run is sufficient to comply with the Emolument laws.

So at the moment it seems there is no evidence of him breaking the law as he hasn't taken office yet.

The title of the OP is Trump Will Be Violating the Constitution immediately when he takes office" and that is the point of the OP. Up to this point your contributions to this discussion have been (in no particular order)
1) irrelevancies about other allegations,
2) repetitive claims about changing the Constitution while ignoring the fact that cannot happen before Jan. 21 and that the process makes it unlikely to happen at all,
3) burping up a straw man about he is not guilty now (which no one is claiming), and
4) hoping his allegedly turning over of his business (which he says he will not do) will somehow satisfy the law.

Is it too much to expect an actual on point and relevant response at some point or are you getting reimbursed by the word?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Amending the Constitution is serious business and takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment. Why should the US go to the trouble just so someone can legally receive rent payments from a foreign country while in office? Even if Congress and the states agreed with you, it would take months to amend the Constitution. In the interim, Trump would still be in violation. The simplest and honorable course of action is for him to sell those interests now. And then work to change the Constitution.

This is part of barrage of unsubstantiated reports being leaked all over the place. Those who believe in evidence based reporting may also get a bit fed up after a while of people issuing unsubstantiated reports from 'credible sources' which would insult the intelligence even of an orangutan (even an orange one).

Are you sure this is unsubstantiated?

Whether these are true or not they are unsubstantiated in their entirety.

Since the OP is about a particular alleged violation of the Constitution, the only relevant issue is whether that allegation is substantiated. The other allegations are irrelevant to the discussion.

If we look at this situation regarding the constitution I stated as follows:
What you say about the President's responsibility is correct if he doesn't hold up the constitution. However the US lawmakers can propose amendments to existing provisions it disagrees with

This will apply once he takes office. Therefore the way he hands over his business interests to others including his family to run needs to be determined when he takes office. I trust this will be done through lawyers. I'm sure if this is done

If I am correct this could only be known once he is in office but there is some debate on whether handing over all his businesses to his family and others to run is sufficient to comply with the Emolument laws.

So at the moment it seems there is no evidence of him breaking the law as he hasn't taken office yet.

The title of the OP is Trump Will Be Violating the Constitution immediately when he takes office" and that is the point of the OP. Up to this point your contributions to this discussion have been (in no particular order)
1) irrelevancies about other allegations,
2) repetitive claims about changing the Constitution while ignoring the fact that cannot happen before Jan. 21 and that the process makes it unlikely to happen at all,
3) burping up a straw man about he is not guilty now (which no one is claiming), and
4) hoping his allegedly turning over of his business (which he says he will not do) will somehow satisfy the law.

Is it too much to expect an actual on point and relevant response at some point or are you getting reimbursed by the word?

So we can see what happens when he takes office.

 

[Will Wiley]

Ethics lawyers to sue Trump over foreign payments

A group including former White House ethics attorneys will file a lawsuit on Monday accusing President Donald Trump of allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Ethics lawyers to sue Trump over foreign payments

A group including former White House ethics attorneys will file a lawsuit on Monday accusing President Donald Trump of allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The real agenda I think is to simply find a way to remove him because his election win is unacceptable. There will be a lot more actions 24/7 throughout his term.
As I understand he had already started taking action to comply with the US Laws. There is nothing to stop any business trading with foreign countries but he would need to fully hand these over to others. I'm not sure of the fine points as only the legal experts can advise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ethics lawyers to sue Trump over foreign payments

The real agenda I think is to simply find a way to remove him because his election win is unacceptable. There will be a lot more actions 24/7 throughout his term.
As I understand he had already started taking action to comply with the US Laws.

Actually there is a report out now that New York, Delaware, and Florida commerce divisions have not received any paper work indicating any changes in Trump's companies.

There is nothing to stop any business trading with foreign countries but he would need to fully hand these over to others.

The general idea is that his family isn't the "others".

I'm not sure of the fine points as only the legal experts can advise.

But you'll certainly be here to disagree when they say divesting means being completely out of it, not having your boys run the show.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are a lot of things that could be changed in the USA regarding more detailed laws on conflicts of interest but these seem more about political warfare rather than reform.

These (laws, right? or did you mean something else?) are designed to protect the country from a president that can be blackmailed by a foreign power, thus undermining America's sovereignty.

I'm aware of this. He has been taking steps to comply by this so we don't know if he is in full compliance. Litigious action could possibly be another grasping of straws to undermine the democratic election. I say this because 24/7 there were attempts to move him. His Tweets then annoy the flocks even more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

These (laws, right? or did you mean something else?) are designed to protect the country from a president that can be blackmailed by a foreign power, thus undermining America's sovereignty.

I'm aware of this. He has been taking steps to comply by this so we don't know if he is in full compliance.

What steps?

 

[Elixir]

I'm aware of this. He has been taking steps to comply by this so we don't know if he is in full compliance.

What steps?

SAYING that he's putting his business concerns in the hands of his own kids - whom he is installing in the white house.
SAYING shit is the only thing he ever does that is consistent with what he is SAYING. His "alternate facts" live in their own very special universe.
I too am wondering if WP can come up with any "steps" that aren't vaporous mouthings.