of all the parts of the constitution for donnie to deem "phony", the emoluments clause is
perhaps the most ridiculous clause to object to.
among the main design principles of the constitution are separation of powers and checks and balances. as a result, much of the constitution can be seen by one party or another as frustratingly limiting.
so it shouldn't be too surprising if a president finds a clause here or there annoying and constraining.
but, really, emoluments? the *only* thing this prevents is self-enrichment at the expense of the government, self-enrichment at the expense of the taxpayer, and corruption of government policy by way or effectively bribing the president through his businesses.
there is *no* legitimate governmental interest in letting the president accept emoluments.
donnie arguing in favor of letting him collect emoluments is to defend the indefensible. it's effectively arguing that he should be allowed to be corrupt and to grift.
this is naked greed and corruption, without even the pretense of any rational excuse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
