General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: MSNBC tv - Trump allies collecting 10s of thousands for pardons
New York Times Michael Schmidt being interviewed.
no_hypocrisy
(46,157 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
The meaning of the word emolument is contested in litigation challenging Trumps alleged violations of both the foreign and the domestic clause. But most dictionaries from the era of the USs founding define the word broadly. John Mikhail, a Georgetown law professor, looked at 40 different dictionaries published between 1604 and 1804 to try to determine how the word was understood at the time of the Constitutions framing. He found that 37 of those 40 dictionaries give it a meaning that would encompass sort of the profits of ordinary market transactions.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20925403/emoluments-clause-trump-g7-resort-impeachment-businesses
Let's see how a Right Wing site describes this:
Compensation
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
This clause accomplishes two things: it establishes that the president is to receive a compensation that is unalterable during the period for which he shall have been elected, and it prohibits him within that period from receiving any other emolument from either the federal government or the states.
The proposition that the president was to receive a fixed compensation for his service in office seems to have been derived from the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, which served as a model for the Framers in other respects as well. The Constitutional Convention hardly debated the issue, except to reject, politely but decisively, the elderly Benjamin Franklins proposal that the president should receive no monetary compensation. Perhaps the Framers feared that if Franklins proposal were accepted, only persons of great wealth would accept presidential office.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 73, the primary purpose of requiring that the presidents compensation be fixed in advance of his service was to fortify the independence of the presidency, and thus to reinforce the larger constitutional design of separation of powers. The legislature, with a discretionary power over the salary and emoluments of the Chief Magistrate, could render him as obsequious to their will as they might think proper to make him. They might in most cases either reduce him by famine, or tempt him by largesses, to surrender at discretion his judgment to their inclinations. For similar separation of powers reasons, Article III, Section 1, provides that federal judges shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, although that provision only forbids Congress from diminishing the judges compensation, not from increasing it. The distinction, as Hamilton noted in The Federalist No. 79, probably arose from the difference in the duration of the respective offices.
.
.
The meaning of the Compensation Clause also arose in the context of President Richard M. Nixons papers. As authorized by the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974, the government had taken or seized President Nixons papers after he had left office. President Nixon (succeeded by his estate) sued for compensation for the taking of what he alleged to be his property under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The government argued that the Compensation Clause precluded payment of compensation on the theory that the presidential materials were the product of President Nixons exercise of powers conferred on him by the United States, and that therefore he could not sell them for his personal profit, even after his presidency, without impermissibly receiving an Emolument over and above the fixed compensation to which he was entitled. The district court rejected the governments argument, relying in part on a prior appellate determination that President Nixon was the owner of the materials in question. It found that President Nixons entitlement to just compensation had vested when the government took his property (i.e., after he had left office), and therefore that the plain language of the Emoluments Clause would not be violated because Mr. Nixon would receive compensation subsequent to the expiration of his term of office. The government argued that such a finding necessarily implied that a sitting president could sell his papers for profit during his tenure of officeto which the court demurred that those are not the facts in this case. The court also found, however, that the papers were not transferred to [President Nixon] by the government as compensation for his service in office, perhaps implying that a president could indeed sell his papers during his term. Griffin v. United States (1995). Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, however, presidents no longer have title to their papers, 44 U.S.C. § 2202, and so cannot sell them, thus obviating the issue of whether such sales would be emoluments.
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/84/compensation
Nixon was trying to profit from his papers after he left office. He probably would not have been able to do so in office.
It kind of looks like it's illegal: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-investigating-potential-white-house-bribery-pardon-scheme-n1249609
.
bullimiami
(13,101 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)bullimiami
(13,101 posts)watch glen kirschner discuss why he believes some pardons could be illegal and how they could and should be challenged.
he knows a lot more about it than any of us.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)pardons is a losing proposition.
Silent3
(15,256 posts)It would be within the power of the Supreme Court to decide the limits of the pardon power. The way you bring this issue to the court is to go ahead and prosecute someone, ignoring any pardons, let the defense argue that the pardons must apply, and fight this out until the case reaches the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS could then interpret the meaning and intent of the pardon power.
On the minus side, apparently the framers of the Constitution had discussed explicit limits on the pardon power, or not having pardon power at all, and ultimately decided on the very broad, open-ended language we have that has no explicit limits on the power.
But there were implicit limits, because we know the framers never intended the President to be above the law, or to be able to act like a king, and if a President can pardon himself, or pardon others for corrupt purposes that serve his own power, that intention would be nullified.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)They have no power over the executive branch. You would need a constitutional amendment.
Silent3
(15,256 posts)Just a rule on the intent of the pardon power, and I don't think it's unreasonable, no matter how terse the wording in the Constitution about the pardon power, it's just not reasonable to assume anyone wanted the pardon power to be so badly abused by a President so as to create a loophole granting king-like power and putting a President above the law.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)I don't think any court even this right wing court would do this...hope not anyway.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)bullimiami
(13,101 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)can't change that.
tavernier
(12,396 posts)via senate, would he still have pardon power?
*The senate could meet today if Mitch called for it... guaranteed they would meet if a SCOTUS justice died and they wanted to replace them before Wednesday.
OnDoutside
(19,965 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)I don't really understand your post.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)As President Trump prepares to leave office in days, a lucrative market for pardons is coming to a head, with some of his allies collecting fees from wealthy felons or their associates to push the White House for clemency, according to documents and interviews with more than three dozen lobbyists and lawyers.
... One lobbyist, Brett Tolman, a former federal prosecutor who has been advising the White House on pardons and commutations, has monetized his clemency work, collecting tens of thousands of dollars, and possibly more, in recent weeks to lobby the White House for clemency for the son of a former Arkansas senator; the founder of the notorious online drug marketplace Silk Road; and a Manhattan socialite who pleaded guilty in a fraud scheme.
Mr. Trumps former personal lawyer John M. Dowd has marketed himself to convicted felons as someone who could secure pardons because of his close relationship with the president, accepting tens of thousands of dollars from a wealthy felon and advising him and other potential clients to leverage Mr. Trumps grievances about the justice system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
dawg day
(7,947 posts)Sleaze will slide towards Trump.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Buckeyeblue
(5,499 posts)And who knows what else he'll do. Other than launch the nukes--which I don't think would be an order that anyone would follow--I can't think of anything he could really do that Biden couldn't quickly undo. I honestly think he has been neutered.
I think Republicans are in a dither because 1. He probably cost them the Senate; 2. Some real wackos road his coattails to get elected that now they have to deal with (especially in the aftermath of 1/6) and 3. Trump is well positioned to really disrupt the 2022 mid-terms and to make the 2024 primary chaotic.
And just wait until Bernie Madoff, Eric Rudolph and Ted K get pardoned on Wednesday. Once again, he'll steal the news cycle.
mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)Arrested for insurrection? Need a pardon. Call the legal offices of Fascists- R-Us at 1-888-782-5377. Yes 1-888-SUCKERS.
Can't afford us? We have monthly a payment plan.
Your pardon will come with intricate gold leaf lettering and a signed, personalized framed photo of Donald trump.
Rhiannon12866
(205,839 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214945453
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)choie
(4,111 posts)if there's evidence of bribery?