March 12, 2018 9:59 am at 9:59 am #1486673
It would greatly enhance the kovod of the United States of America.
Donald Jr. would be Crown Prince and heir apparent to the American throne.
We’d finally be toe-to-toe with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.March 12, 2018 11:07 am at 11:07 am #1486896
Joseph, You don’t seem to know you American history. President Washington refused to be crowned king. In other countries like Israel you ha ve a president and a prime minister. The president represents the state he is permanent similar to the queen of England but prime minister is elected every term. In America the president takes the place of the prime minister and the flag stands for the state. We have enough problems as it is with Trump thinking he is king. What would happen if he would be made king, you could not control his selfishness.March 12, 2018 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm #1486952
laskern: America follows the English legal tradition. This should include a monarch.March 12, 2018 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm #1486986
Why don’t we have a prime minister? They hated the monarch George. They revolted against him, so they didn’t want to have a monarch.March 12, 2018 1:03 pm at 1:03 pm #1487044
Lask: Don’t know that the sages discussed “trolling”–if they did, you would understand OP purposeMarch 12, 2018 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm #1487316
That would be the end of the world as we know it!
Fast food and junk food would be subject to bishul akumMarch 12, 2018 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #1487444
1. America has a very strong republican (small “r”) tradition. Most people get annoyed when children of leaders try to base a career on their parent’s success.
2. Most monarchies tend to flop except for ones such as Britain in which they steadily gave up power and ended up as being apolitical and powerless (which in itself is useful, since in the US there is no one who is able to be apolitical).
3. Trump has managed to alienated at least half of the country. A successful president would have something like 80% approval ratings at least. Few presidents approached that (Washington probably but he was unique, Lincoln by the summer of 1865, Franklin Roosevelt by the fall of 1945, you get the picture).March 12, 2018 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #1487487
Akuperma, Lincoln died in the Spring of 1865 and FDR died in the Spring of 1945.March 12, 2018 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm #1487511
He should be impeached, tried, convicted and sent to prisonMarch 12, 2018 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #1487543
CTLawyer: on what grounds?March 12, 2018 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #1487757
CTL, someone has hacked your account.
I’m used to hearing (reading actually) sensible, calm and controlled debate from you.
Just a view (from the real monarchy of the UK of GB & NI); Trump has done a few good things in his first 14 months in office (after defeating your friend Hillary Rodham). He’s all but killed the Middle East “peace” process, recognised Yerushalayim as the capital of Israel, got the N Koreans to consider talks with S Korea. Not bad.March 12, 2018 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm #1487791
YesMarch 12, 2018 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #1487783March 12, 2018 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #1487789
The quick, short reply was to raise Joseph’s hackles.
I’ve answered DaMoshe that I believe Trump has violated Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution (emoluments clause). I studied and taught US Constitution in Law School for decades and that is my opinion of his actions.
BTW, just flew back from a quick visit to SA last Monday night. 5 days there, two days flying. Probably the last time I’ll be on an SAA flight. Sad to see the way the company has fallen apart. Told the cab driver to take me to Jan Smuts for departure (I had flown into Capetown) and he stared at me like I was crazy. Silly me, in a time warp..Or Tambo is not a name that is in my vocabulary. Sad to see all the changes, 40 years since my last visit.March 12, 2018 11:20 pm at 11:20 pm #1487802
Some years ago Woody Allen was in total agreement with the US media and most of Hollywood that suggested bluntly that Obama should just be made dictator. The d-word was used, and it was clear.
So I don’t see why we can’t make him King then. Maybe he can get more done without the constant obstructionism.March 12, 2018 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #1487812
@CTL, phew that’s more like it. I’m going to have to Google to understand the first bit of your reply. But on the 2nd bit; Thanks for the update. Yes SA has changed beyond recognition in the last 24 years. Pity that Mandela’s successors couldn’t keep up his progress. In my time OR Tambo was a terrorist and Cape Town airport had tap water and was called DF Malan.March 12, 2018 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #1487816
CTL, my hackles are very difficult to be raised.March 12, 2018 11:24 pm at 11:24 pm #1487820
Having a king would go against everything the United States stands for. However, I’m okay with him being president for life, as long as that isn’t more than two four year terms.March 13, 2018 2:29 am at 2:29 am #1487870
CTL, I agree with Geordie. After impeachment is removal and only then indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7). However, so far as I know there is no criminal or civil punishment for violating the Emoluments Clause.March 13, 2018 8:55 am at 8:55 am #1487889
CTL, I am no fan of “the donald;” I think he is completely unfit to govern. Nevertheless, I don’t understand why you think he has violated the emoluments clause. What specifically did he do in violation of that clause?March 13, 2018 8:56 am at 8:56 am #1487876
After House votes to impeach the Senate conducts a trial. No removal after impeachment, only after Senate conviction. It is my belief that if impeached and convicted he would then be subject to other trials and penalties for perjury, obstruction of justice, tax evasion, etc. the convictions and incarceration presupposes his successor does pull a Jerry (the Republican) Ford and pardon TrumpMarch 13, 2018 9:01 am at 9:01 am #1487878
From ctl in the Trump being impeached thread
From May 2017
I believe he is in violation of Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, specifically the “emoluments” clause. He is being enriched by foreign government spending at his properties.
From ctl now in this thread
I’ve answered DaMoshe that I believe Trump has violated Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution (emoluments clause).
Mueller has been investigating trump for more than a year now, if this really is impeachable and a crime mueller would be done with the case and recommend trump be thrown out of office
Since he hasn’t when “it’s obviously clear” means that it isn’t and this is most probably a witch huntMarch 13, 2018 9:02 am at 9:02 am #1487881
Imagine going from The Donald to King Donald I.March 13, 2018 11:31 am at 11:31 am #1487935
1. A Senate conviction is tantamount to removal so I did not differentiate.
2. I think that you mean “does not pull a Gerry” (names are capitalized and Ford’s full first name was “Gerald”). You should also have capitalized “the” as it begins a sentence.
3. I don’t mind Pence becoming President.
Joseph, that would be a demotion. “The Donald” means that he is the one and only (IMHO Ivana Trump, who coined it, was overcompensating for the Czech language not having a definite article except for emphasis – or maybe she wanted to emphasize his name). “King Donald I” means that there will be more.March 13, 2018 11:31 am at 11:31 am #1488013
CTL, I’m not a lawyer or an expert in constitutional law. Please explain for the layman:
Emoluments is defined by Marriam-Webster as, “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.”
Perquisites is defined (also by Marriam-Webster) as, “a privilege, gain, or profit incidental to regular salary or wages; especially : one expected or promised.”
Is there any reason to think that the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution would preclude a President (or anybody holding any office of profit or trust under the United States) from profiting from a business relationship that does not have the character of employment?
Whether this should be permitted or ethical is irrelevant. The question here is whether the clause mentioned applies.March 13, 2018 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm #1488159
Off topic for the rest.
Daughter arrive in CapeTown on her ship from Antarctica via Tristan Da Cunha. They immediately offloaded 90% of the contents of their freshwater tanks to provide for other ships at the port. The ship spent a week in port running its desalinization equipment and donating the potable water. She flew to JoBurg to meet me and the ship sailed on to Port Elizabeth to provision and off to the Indian Ocean. She won’t be on the ship at all until it’s in the Med this summer.
My comment was about SAA (airline) bound for bankruptcy. SA itself is no more. I found JoBurg to be a 3rd world City. Cape Town is even more segregated than I remember.March 13, 2018 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm #1488158
Typed on my touchscreen Kindle, which autocorrects and does not let me edit as I’d like.
Actually Ford was born Leslie Lynch King Jr. name changed to that of stepfather.
The Senate can convict and NOT remove from office. They can also censure or reprimand.
The character of employment you mention has to due with employment by Government, NOT being employed by a business the person owned. There is no question in my mind that many foreign governments/officials suck-up to Trump by sending at his named properties, thus providing these profits. I do not believe he has gifted all the profits to the USA and he provides no backup audited by GAAP.
I don’t trust a thing Trump says or does.March 13, 2018 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #1488154
I can not agree with your hypothesis that Trump has been investigated by Mueller and if he had been found to have violated the Emoluments Clause and if Mueller fond so he would recommend Trump be thrown out of office.
The Special Prosecutor has no power to start Impeachment Process. He works for the Justice Department, part of the Executive Branch headed by the President. A Bill of impeachment (similar to an indictment) must be brought by a member of the House of Representatives. If passed, a trial would be held by the Senate. They could sentence the Impeached to removal, or something as simple as a censure or reprimand.
The Special Prosecutor can bring charges against individuals m(and corporations) for violating Federal Laws/Codes/Acts and the Federal Courts would try and sentence.March 13, 2018 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #1488213
I don’t trust a thing Trump says or does.
Don’t worry, the feeling was mutual I didn’t trust anything obama said it did eitherMarch 13, 2018 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #1488236
CTL, I don’t trust him either. As I’ve said, I do not consider him fit to govern.
I also speculate that foreign governments/officials are trying to curry favor with the current President in that way.
I also think that this should not be legal, and that it is not ethical.
To be sure, I think it’s obvious that it is not consistent with the spirit of the Emolument Clause; I do not see, however, that it is a violation of the letter of the law.
The Clause does not prohibit any and all profitable relationships with any King, Prince, or Foreign State. It only disallows the accepting of any present, emolument, office or title. It does not seem technically to prohibit any other sort of business dealings, such as the sale of commodities or foreign governments holding conferences in hotels owned by the President, etc.
Please explain why this is not correct.March 13, 2018 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #1488244
CTL: In order to violate the clause, wouldn’t it have to be proven that the foreign governments paid above the market rate when they spent money at his properties?March 13, 2018 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm #1488258
The Special Prosecutor can bring charges against individuals m(and corporations) for violating Federal Laws/Codes/Acts and the Federal Courts would try and sentence.
So are you saying he can’t bring any charges against trump or that he can’t impeach him?
If you’re just saying that he can bring charges but can’t impeach him you’re playing semantics because I’m asking why can’t he bring a charge against trump that he violated the clause in the constitution?March 13, 2018 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm #1488268
Has anyone noticed that in most European countries – including Great Britain – the monarch “reigns but does not rule.” In other words, they’re figureheads, showpieces that have very little actual say in the government but just serve as icons to show who “belongs to our team.” The US President, on the other hand, is one of three co-equal powers in the US Federal government.
I don’t think Mr. Trump would consent to having his powers reduced to mere symbolism.March 13, 2018 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #1488272
Oh, and Joseph – congratulations on a really first-class piece of trolling. I haven’t had time to read the thread carefully yet, but it looks like it’s going to be really interesting.March 13, 2018 5:44 pm at 5:44 pm #1488890
It is NOT semantics. Only the House of Representatives part of the Legislative branch of Government can bring an impeachment action against an official of the Executive Branch or Judiciary (Yes, Congress can impeach and Try Federal Judges).
The Special Prosecutor is part of the Justice Department/Executive Branch. He can lay charges for prosecution in the court system for violation of Federal Laws/Code/Acts. This can lead to conviction/fines/imprisonment. However, a sitting President has practical immunity form such an action and only is subject to Impeachment. If Impeached and convicted and removed from office the former President could be subject to prosecution for the ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ which led to conviction in the Senate.
That’s why Ford pardoned Nixon when he resigned, otherwise Nixon could have been prosecuted as a private citizen and sent to prison.March 13, 2018 6:45 pm at 6:45 pm #1488918
Semantics is that I’m asking why doesn’t mueller recommend impeachment based on his findings and then show that the republicans are aiding a criminal and then their public opinion goes down the drain
Unless he’s waiting for an October surprise, but that’s just being political and not really caring for the law
Anyways mueller has fusion gps helping as much as they can while having their spouse work in the fbiMarch 13, 2018 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #1488947
Basic Civics Lesson:
Mueller is an employee of the Executive Branch of government. He can’t recommend impeachment because he does not report to the US House of Representatives (part of the Legislative Branch). This is Separation of Powers.
Any member of the House can introduce a Bill of Impeachment. But it has to make it to the floor and win a majority vote to cause a trial by the Senate.March 13, 2018 10:08 pm at 10:08 pm #1488966
Emoluments clause means, simply:
You cannot ever have been in any type of business, ever.
Remember the problem with Dick Cheney. He used to work for Halliburton. Years after he left, the government Halliburton got a contract. They (you) had the same argument then for impeachment and citizens arrest calls.
Only community organizers who have never had a real job, nor understand the ways of the world or peoples problems are allowed to become President.March 13, 2018 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1488970
Thanks for the civics lesson
So what can mueller do to trump?March 13, 2018 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm #1488971
CTLawyer, that means that even though Mueller recommends impeachment, he will not be impeached if the house leadership does not want to.March 13, 2018 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #1488973
Joseph, why are you so anxious to live in a dictatorship? I’ll gladly pay for your one way ticket to Russia.
AviK, FDR died naturally, not killed.
And there’s no shortage of what to impeach over. The Constitution says “high crimes and misdeameanors”. Congress can decide what a misdemeanor is, which means that they can be impeached for blowing their nose on the wrong side of the street.
Anyway, there’s no shortage. From refusing to implement Russian sanctions, to signing executive orders against religious liberty, to accepting money from foreign governments by making foreign dignitaries stay in Trump Hotel rather than Blair House, to “very fine people”, to the comments against Haiti, to obstruction of justice, to Flynn’s violation of the Logan Act, to firing Comey once he was about to potentially be exposed,to refusing to divest from his businesses, to undermining freedom of the press, and much more which is too much to list right now.March 13, 2018 11:20 pm at 11:20 pm #1489004
Congress can decide what a misdemeanor is, which means that they can be impeached for blowing their nose on the wrong side of the street.
That is a very slippery slope because then congress can impeach a president (democrat or republican) for any idiotic reasonMarch 14, 2018 7:13 am at 7:13 am #1489012
JFK International Airport ought to be renamed Trump International Airport in honor of the upcoming major national infrastructure spending The Donald will be spearheading to upgrade America’s airports and other infrastructure.March 14, 2018 7:21 am at 7:21 am #1489055
Anyway, there’s no shortage. From refusing to implement Russian sanctions, to signing executive orders against religious liberty, to accepting money from foreign governments by making foreign dignitaries stay in Trump Hotel rather than Blair House, to “very fine people”, to the comments against Haiti, to obstruction of justice, to Flynn’s violation of the Logan Act, to firing Comey once he was about to potentially be exposed,to refusing to divest from his businesses, to undermining freedom of the press, and much more which is too much to list right now.
Every single item on this list is a lie.March 14, 2018 7:30 am at 7:30 am #1489054
Laskem, the Israeli president is not permanent. He serves a single 7-year term and is then done. He can’t be reelected, and he can’t return to politics for five years (if I recall correctly).
CTLawyer, not only is the normal profit from business conducted at arm’s length, in the open market, not an emolument, the clause doesn’t apply to the president anyway. The presidency is not an office under the United States, so the president is entitled to receive outright gifts from foreign princes, if he likes . George Washington had absolutely no qualms about doing so, made no attempt to hide it, and the Congress made no protest or attempt to stop him, or even to give him preemptive permission. That proves they saw no violation either.March 14, 2018 9:34 am at 9:34 am #1489100
Milhouse, thank you, I learned something. I thought that because he represents the state, he should be permanent.March 14, 2018 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm #1489304
CTL, Thank you for the personal reply. My sister was in SA this past summer after not being there since 94. I saw pictures of Yeoville, Observatory and the areas where I grew up. And it is so sad. You can’t argue that democracy shouldn’t have happened, but there was a certain measure of First World-ness that went when the ANC took over. (ve’hamayvin yavin.) Would it have been different if apartheid hadn’t happened? We’ll never know.
Having said that, Yiddishkeit is flourishing. The baal teshuva movement there is the most successful in the world. I don’t know if the Shabbos Project could have started so successfully anywhere else. There is almost no reform or conservative there. The community in Johannesburg has moved north, and in Cape Town has moved to Sea Point and Torah is growing on the tip of Africa.March 14, 2018 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm #1489320
Just to the OP, a monarchists perspective. I don’t think Trump should be crowned a King and USA wouldn’t work as a monarchy. But us living in a monarchy are very grateful that we have a Queen who leads with a sense of responsibility. She leads her family and by extension the country as a moral example. The monarchy gives stability to the governance of the country. Even though she doesn’t make laws and kill people like her ancestors may have, she is still more involved in day to day business of state than people realise.March 14, 2018 1:19 pm at 1:19 pm #1489535
Geordie, you most certainly can make a most compelling argument that ending SA apartheid was a great error.
As far as your Queen is concerned, she may certainly be all you describe. But her family, including her heir apparent, is most certainly not any moral example or anything close to a moral example. Nor are very many of her ancestors who reigned before her, both recent ones and ones of old. G-d only help your country when Charlie Boy takes over. (Thankfully his first wife, who was worse than himself, got her just deserts already and will never be crowned even as Queen Consort.)
In any event, her Royal Assent is a pretty serious power she still legally possess.March 14, 2018 1:49 pm at 1:49 pm #1489552
No, she doesn’t. The decision whether to assent to legislation is made not by the Queen but by the active members of the Privy Council, which is to say the Cabinet. She has no say in the matter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.