Emoluments clause question concerning Pence

[diva77]

If Pence stays at Dump's resort is he violating emoluments clause too? He is not benefiting financially, however, it seems he is using government money to garner favor with his boss.

Can anyone clarify, please?

[NCLefty]

1. I think Trump is the one in violation there. He's the one that makes the money.

However, IANAL.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Let's see...

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Pence/the Federal Government is/are not a King, Prince or foreign State.

...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 7:

The President cannot get paid anything but salary from the United States while President. The President cannot get money from any State.

The courts would have to make a ruling as to whether the federal government paying for someone to stay at a Trump owned property constitutes getting "paid anything but salary from the United States" (and if so it'd be Trump not Pence that would be in violation of the clause).

[Buzz cook]

3. If there was an agreement to divert government funds

just for the benefit of Trumps bottom line, then we have a crime. Certainly its worth looking into.

[RockRaven]

4. Trump is not really Pence's boss. He's elected to his own office, not appointed, and cannot be fired

or otherwise ditched by Trump during this term of office to which Pence was elected. The way the founders laid out the election of VP and the way VPs are selected today are kind of divergent in practice, but the distinction between being elected or being appointed/hired still holds. Technically the VP is a separate elected office, even though these days the parties' POTUS noms choose VP noms (which the party then officially selects/rubber-stamps).

In either case, the emoluments clause prohibits the acceptance, not the giving, so Trump is the party in violation (if indeed one accepts the proposition that this act was a violation -- which of course Trump/Repukes do not).

At least, that is my lay-person understanding. Not a lawyer, nor a historian.

[diva77]

5. kicking just to see if anyone else has input