Trump will be violating the Constitution immediately upon taking office

[Loren Pechtel]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

 

[fast]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

Does rent come due the very same day?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

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.

 

[Elixir]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

It would be hilarious if China decided to stiff him on the rent, ostensibly to avoid becoming complicit in Trump's crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

Does rent come due the very same day?

It becomes owed due to occupation.

- - - Updated - - -

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

It would be hilarious if China decided to stiff him on the rent, ostensibly to avoid becoming complicit in Trump's crime.

Sounds good!

 

[laughing dog]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

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.

Unless you are saying the US Constitution needs to be amended, your comment is irrelevant.

 

[dismal]

It would seem to be a bit of a challenge to demonstrate that an apparently arm's length contract which long predated Trump taking office would be a present or emolument associated with his office.

If there were someone to demonstrate such things to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would seem to be a bit of a challenge to demonstrate that an apparently arm's length contract which long predated Trump taking office would be a present or emolument associated with his office.

If there were someone to demonstrate such things to.

It's still a conflict of interest. Look what's happened with Turkey--the government arrested the guy in charge of building a Trump building there--most likely to pressure Trump into handing over that cleric they want.

 

[Malintent]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

I had been thinking this myself.. but then I read article 2 and realized that the President and Vice President are exempt from that law.

 

[Malintent]

It's unconstitutional for a government official to receive money from a foreign power. Trump rents to China.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...th-warren-presidential-conflicts-of-interest/

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Or pressured--such as Turkey arresting the #1 guy at a Trump construction project there.

 

[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.

Unless you are saying the US Constitution needs to be amended, your comment is irrelevant.

Both. It is about political warfare; worse since the election is over, and the US can consider changes to its laws. However he will need to hand the running of his companies to others.

 

[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.

Do mean he would be blackmailed over China/or Chinese companies not paying the rent?
If the Americans have any concerns they can either apply existing laws or draft new ones. It's up to the select committees etc to determine that he has handed over the management of his businesses over to others.

To make this simpler, his new job is that of a president 24/7 so he shouldn't be tied to his companies especially in terms of time.
In such cases he can hand management over to others.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Or pressured--such as Turkey arresting the #1 guy at a Trump construction project there.

This person was arrested with many other tens of thousands, accused of being part of the failed coup. How would this affect Trump if he has handed the businesses over and they in turn simply appoint someone else as the top man in Turkey?

 

[laughing dog]

Unless you are saying the US Constitution needs to be amended, your comment is irrelevant.

Both. It is about political warfare; worse since the election is over, and the US can consider changes to its laws. However he will need to hand the running of his companies to others.

A US President swears to uphold the Constitution when he or she is inaugurated - not the parts he or she feels are relevant. Until the US amends the Constitution, Trump is expected to abide by it. The US constitution has not been amended. And it is difficult to change the US Constitution.

The notion that it is political warfare to expect the POTUS to stand by his or her word and to abide by the supreme law of the land is ridiculous.

 

[TV and credit cards]

But when you believe all that you do is right why wouldn't you believe all that you do is constitutional?
There is only one right: Trump.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Both. It is about political warfare; worse since the election is over, and the US can consider changes to its laws. However he will need to hand the running of his companies to others.

A US President swears to uphold the Constitution when he or she is inaugurated - not the parts he or she feels are relevant. Until the US amends the Constitution, Trump is expected to abide by it. The US constitution has not been amended. And it is difficult to change the US Constitution.

The notion that it is political warfare to expect the POTUS to stand by his or her word and to abide by the supreme law of the land is ridiculous.

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 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).

 

[Elixir]

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

 

[laughing dog]

A US President swears to uphold the Constitution when he or she is inaugurated - not the parts he or she feels are relevant. Until the US amends the Constitution, Trump is expected to abide by it. The US constitution has not been amended. And it is difficult to change the US Constitution.

The notion that it is political warfare to expect the POTUS to stand by his or her word and to abide by the supreme law of the land is ridiculous.

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?

 

[Elixir]

The simplest and honorable course of action is for him to sell those interests now.

There is no reason to think that "honorable" enters into the equation at all, for Trump. Elsewhere, Loren made a comment to the effect that Trump's interest is power, and I tend to agree. If that's the case, flouting laws is not a barrier to whatever... but I strongly suspect, based on consistent past behavior, that Trump will not/cannot divest much without his indebtedness coming to light. So he won't.