461
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I don't understand how the emoluments clause is not an open and shut impeachment case.

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago

As we saw with his first two impeachments, impeachment is not removal. So long as the cult of personality continues to support him, so too will the Republican Party.

[-] btsax@reddthat.com 2 points 6 months ago

Because the imoluments clause can't jump off the page and enforce itself

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

But we agree if it were enforced then there would be no defence?

Acceptance of gold bar for reduced tariffs is sufficient emolument evidence?

[-] btsax@reddthat.com 1 points 6 months ago

OK so he broke that rule. What does the constitution say is the punishment? That's the problem: it doesn't. It just says things that are "illegal" and it's up to human beings to decide what to do after that. Congress never passed a law saying what would happen if that clause was broken. They can't enforce laws anyway, that's up to the executive. So if all the humans don't come up with some plan, it doesn't matter what the paper says. I'd say you could wipe your ass with it but you're better off with a bidet

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

"A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is required to convict and remove the official."

I see the problem. 20 republican senators are not switching sides.

[-] btsax@reddthat.com 2 points 6 months ago

That's not specifically for taking bribes, though. That could be for literally anything including things that aren't crimes or aren't forbidden in the constitution. It's a political action, not a legal one.

Something more concrete would be if, during the Biden presidency, Congress passed a law saying that any foreign gift to a federal official including the president goes into a trust or is forcibly confiscated by the federal government and/or sold off to pay the country's debt or something like that. They did basically nothing instead, even knowing that they'd never get that much of a majority in the Senate to actually remove a president for violating the constitution or that hypothetical new law. So there's effectively no actual rule against emoluments despite what that piece of paper says.

this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
461 points (99.6% liked)

politics

31022 readers
1099 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS