First, the Emoluments Clause is only dealing with foreign emoluments, which is what that post referenced, which is why I added Article Two, Section One, Clause 7 (sometimes referred to as the Domestic Emoluments Clause), and 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, to the thread in the post you quoted to add to the discussion.
I do have a major problem with it. I even have a major problem with "blind trusts" because unless they are divested while seen and re-invested elsewhere while blind, they change nothing and the government official can still effect their own investments positively for enrichment. Giving a post a "like" by me doesn't always mean that I agree with the post's intended thought or position, but rather it could be for the unintended and in this case ironic tactic being used that should embarrass the poster if they understood what they actually wrote, and how it affects their own side and their own position. Sometimes a "like" by me is similar to the Southern phrase, Bless Your Heart. It also could be because although I disagree with your point, I think you made a great post - you get some of those "likes" from me from time to time. I can't either. Well, maybe Carter? Didn't he divest his holdings completely and put his retained earnings into a real and actual blind trust while in office?
The difference between acceptable and unacceptable for me relates to enrichment in office or out of office.
Then I'm silly. I have no problem with truly blind trusts, but complete divestment should occur prior.
Ugh @ hacking up a post piecemeal.
Ok, so you may "like" posts for diverse reasons, including obscure ones like the possibility that you hope the poster realizes or fails to realize it's an "ironic" like (the grey). I'd have thought that at least one requirement would be agreeing with what was said, but whatever.
The subject...
His post singled out the Clintons and Obama. Ok, so you didn't like it for the actual declaration asserted, or maybe you did and I don't know because you won't really say. Fine. But at the very least, between that, your reply to Cardinal, and your reply to me, you seem to think that Clinton and Obama
unlawfully profited outside of their salary.
I don't know why we ended up on complete divestment PLUS blind reinvestment since the subject of the thread started with stupidity...
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...and then added on hackery...
Talk about EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.....no one enriched themselves DIRECTLY OFF OF THE PRESIDENCY like the Obamas and Clintons have...
...and we only seem to have expanded to "Illegitimate" income with a more specific reference to the emoulment's clause in your response to Cardinal. Then in responding to me, you drill down to divestment and blind reinvestment.
Are there some still controlling federal decisions ruling that various things Clinton or Obama (or, since you may or may not think it applies to all, all the other presidents or any of them) did that violates the emoulment's clause? An instructive but not controlling state court decision about a state official violating a state constitution? Or is this one of those things where a poster is reallysaying something along the lines of [
regardless of what the law actually is now, I personally think the law should be X,Y,Z based on what I think when I read the constitution, and under that view, persons A,B, and C, are all violating the constitution]? That latter thing is what it sounds like.
If something Clinton did really was an emoulments violation, you can bet your arse the GOP would've been all over it under junior Bush, especially after 9/11 sent his popularity and support sky-high. Ditto Trump vs. Obama. Of course....I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of any majority opinion or perhaps any opinion come to think of it from the founders on the subject of whether doing something resembling selling a book or getting paid to give speeches after being president should not happen. It's more about investing in a shipping company, then changing the law to be more favorable to shipping companies in some way. (Or boat owners individually. Insurance was just getting started then, right?)
Ok, I'll chop once.
I presume I will have to live with being silly in your eyes. Which is okay with me.
When you hide the ball where it can't be found and complain that someone else didn't see it, you do look silly. Snappily or not, you can't very well complain that I've somehow gotten you terribly wrong when I only have the difference between what you do say and do not say to go on.....