He's a white South African, like Elon Musk, who was raised during apartheid and, like Elon, has adopted its ethos of suppression and economic terrorism against the less fortunate.
That he's gay and openly bankrolls homophobic politicians who implement policies that hurt lgbtq is part of his psychosis. He thinks they won't turn on him, because he's special. When in reality all he has is a bag of money and it's only a matter of time until they decide to take it from him.
Republicans can't win, so they have to cheat. Trump is the biggest whiny bitch cheater in history. Cheaters of a feather...
Every angle Trump has is to explain all his losses as "GOP got cheated." GOP will lose 2026 seats because they got cheated. GOP will lose is 2028 because they got cheated.
An annotation about Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 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.
To preserve the Presidentâs independence from Congress and state governments, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 provides that Congress may not increase or decrease the Presidentâs compensation during his term in office and further bars the President from receiving any other Emolument [beyond a fixed salary] from the United States, or any of them.1 Consequently, Congress cannot use its control over the Presidentâs salary to influence him; the provision accordingly reinforces the separation of powers. As Justice Joseph Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, [a] control over a manâs living is in most cases a control over his actions.2 The Domestic Emoluments Clauseâunlike the Foreign Emoluments Clause3âdoes not allow Congress to assent to the President receiving otherwise prohibited emoluments from the state or federal governments.
Modeled after similar provisions in state constitutions,4 the Domestic Emoluments Clause received little attention at the Constitutional Convention.5 In the Federalist No. 73, however, Alexander Hamilton explained that the Domestic Emoluments Clause was intended to isolate the President from potentially corrupting congressional influence. Because the Presidentâs salary is fixed once for all each term, Hamilton commented, Congress can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice.6 Similarly, Hamilton explained that because [n]either the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give . . . any other emolument, the President will have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.7 Other Framers echoed this sentiment during the ratification debates.8
The Domestic Emoluments Clause has been rarely analyzed or interpreted by courts during its history.9 During the administration of President Donald Trump, several litigants alleged that President Trumpâs retention of certain business and financial interests violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, but the Supreme Court ultimately found these cases moot without addressing their merits.10
Footnotes
Jump to essay-1U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7.
Jump to essay-23 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1480 (1833).
Jump to essay-3See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8; see ArtI.S9.C8.1 Overview of Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments Clauses.
Jump to essay-4See, e.g., Mass Const. of 1780, pt. II, ch. II, § 1, art. XIII (As the public good requires that the governor should not be under the undue influence . . . it is necessary that he should have an honorable stated salary, of a fixed and permanent value . . . .); Md. Const. of 1776, art. XXXII (That no person ought to hold, at the same time, more shall one office of profit, nor ought any person in public trust, to receive any present from any foreign prince or state, or from the United States, or any of them, without the approbation of this State.).
Jump to essay-5Early in the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the President should receive no compensation at all; this motion was politely postponed with great respect, but rather for the author of it than from any apparent conviction of its expediency or practicability. 1 Records of the Federal Convention 81-85 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (Madisonâs notes) [hereinafter Farrandâs Records]. The Convention unanimously agreed to the fixed salary provision for the President on July 20, 1787. 2 Farrandâs Records, supra, at 69. On September 15, 1787, Franklin and John Rutledge moved to bar the President from receiving any other emolument from the federal or state governments, which the Convention approved by a 7-4 vote without noted debate. 2 Farrandâs Records, supra, at 626.
Jump to essay-6The Federalist No. 73 (Alexander Hamilton).
Jump to essay-7Id.
Jump to essay-8See, e.g., 2 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 446 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1836) (statement of James Wilson) ([The Domestic Emoluments Clause was designed] to secure the President from any dependence upon the legislature as to his salary.).
Jump to essay-9See generally Michael A. Foster & Kevin J. Hickey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R45992, The Emoluments Clauses and the Presidency: Background and Recent Developments (2019), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45992. The few judicial or executive decisions on the Domestic Emoluments Clause include Griffin v. United States, 935 F. Supp. 1, 3â6 (D.D.C. 1995); Nixon v. Sampson, 389 F. Supp. 107, 136â37 (D.D.C. 1975); and President Reaganâs Ability to Receive Retirement Benefits from the State of California, 5 Op. O.L.C. 187 (1981).
Jump to essay-10For an overview of that litigation, see ArtI.S9.C8.3 Foreign Emoluments Clause Generally.
An annotation about Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
For most of its history, courts have rarely substantively analyzed or interpreted the Foreign Emoluments Clause.1 During the administration of President Donald Trump, however, a number of private parties, state attorneys general, and Members of Congress sued the President based on alleged violations of both the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause2 (collectively, the Emoluments Clauses). Three major federal lawsuits concerning the Emoluments Clauses were filed against President Trump.3 Over nearly four years, these cases progressed through the lower federal courts, resulting in the first significant judicial decisions on the Emoluments Clauses.
In late 2020, the Supreme Court denied review in one of these cases,4 andâafter the end of President Trumpâs term in January 2021âinstructed two federal appellate courts to vacate their judgments and dismiss the other two cases as moot.5 As a result, most of the lower court decisions on the Emoluments Clauses have been vacated.6 In the absence of definitive precedent from the Supreme Court, this section reviews these lower court holdings regarding the meaning and scope of the Emoluments Clauses, although they generally retain at most persuasive, and not precedential, value.7
In the three cases, plaintiffs alleged that President Trumpâs retention of certain business and financial interests during his Presidency violated the Emoluments Clauses. For example, because President Trump retained an ownership interest in the Trump International Hotel, plaintiffs alleged he received constitutionally forbidden emoluments when foreign or state governments paid for their officials to stay at the Hotel.8 In a series of rulings, the lower courts addressed three main issues: (1) who has standing to assert Emoluments Clause violations; (2) whether the President and other elected officials are subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause; and (3) the meaning and scope of the term emolument.9
On the standing-to-sue issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that individual Members of Congress lacked standing to sue based on alleged injuries to the legislature as a whole (namely, the deprivation of an opportunity to vote on whether to consent to the acceptance of foreign emoluments).10 As to the standing of private individuals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that hospitality-industry plaintiffs had standing based on a theory of competitive harm resulting from the allegedly unlawful acceptance of emoluments.11 However, a number of judges on the Second Circuit dissented from this holding12 and the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the decision as moot.13
On the second issue, commentators have debated whether federal elected officials hold an Office of Profit or Trust under the United States are thus subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause.14 The Department of Justiceâs Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has developed a body of opinions on the Emoluments Clauses, has opined that the President surely holds an office of profit and trust under the Constitution.15 In litigation, President Trump did not dispute that he was subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause,16 and the only lower court to directly reach the issue agreed with the OLCâs view.17 However, that holding was subsequently vacated.18
The final litigated issue was the meaning and scope of the term emolument as used in the Emoluments Clausesâparticularly, whether it includes private, armâs-length market transactions. In the litigation, President Trump argued that emoluments included only benefits received by an officeholder in return for official action or through his office or employment.19 Plaintiffs urged that emoluments be defined more broadly to apply to any profit, gain, or advantage received by the President from a foreign or domestic government.20 The two district courts that reached the issue adopted the plaintiffsâ broader definition of emolument,21 although the appellate courts subsequently vacated those decisions.22
Footnotes
Jump to essay-1See Michael A. Foster & Kevin J. Hickey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R45992, The Emoluments Clauses and the Presidency: Background and Recent Developments 1 (2019). Like the Title of Nobility Clause, the Foreign Emoluments Clause is occasionally cited by the Supreme Court in passing to make a rhetorical point. See, e.g., Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commân, 558 U.S. 310, 424 n.51 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Foreign Emoluments Clause to argue that the notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 157 (1973) (noting that the Emoluments Clause, along with a number of other constitutional provisions, uses the term Person without pre-natal application).
Jump to essay-2See ArtII.S1.C7.1 Emoluments Clause and Presidential Compensation.
Jump to essay-3See Complaint, Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00458-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2017); Complaint, Blumenthal v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. June 14, 2017); Complaint, District of Columbia v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. June 12, 2017).
Jump to essay-4Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 553 (U.S. 2020).
Jump to essay-5See CREW v. Trump, 953 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2019), vacated, No. 20-330, 2021 WL 231541 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2021); In re Trump, 958 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc), vacated sub nom., Trump v. District of Columbia, No. 20-331, 2021 WL 231542 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2021).
Jump to essay-6An exception is the District of Columbia Circuitâs opinion on legislative standing, which remains good law. See Blumenthal, 949 F.3d 14.
Jump to essay-7See Persuasive Authority, Blackâs Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (Authority that carries some weight but is not binding on a court . . . .).
Jump to essay-8See, e.g., CREW v. Trump, 276 F. Supp. 3d 174, 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (reviewing plaintiffsâ allegations), vacated and remanded, 953 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2019), judgment vacated, No. 20-330, 2021 WL 231541 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2021).
Jump to essay-9For a fuller examination of these decisions, see Foster & Hickey, supra note 1, at 5â18.
Jump to essay-10Blumenthal, 949 F.3d at 19â20.
Jump to essay-11CREW v. Trump, 953 F.3d 178, 189â200 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. granted, judgment vacated, No. 20-330, 2021 WL 231541 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2021). A district court in Maryland adopted a similar view of competitor standing with respect to state-government plaintiffs. See District of Columbia v. Trump, 291 F. Supp. 3d 725, 740â49 (D. Md. 2018), vacated, 838 F. Appâx 789, 790 (4th Cir. 2021).
Jump to essay-12See CREW v. Trump, 971 F.3d 102, 102 (2d Cir. 2020) (noted dissents from five judges from the denial of rehearing en banc).
Jump to essay-13CREW v. Trump, No. 20-330, 2021 WL 231541 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2021).
Jump to essay-14Compare Seth Barrett Tillman, The Original Public Meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause: A Reply to Professor Zephyr Teachout, 107 Nw. U.L. Rev. Colloquy 180, 185â95 (2013) (arguing that the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to elected federal officials), with Zephyr Teachout, Gifts, Offices, and Corruption, 107 Nw. U.L. Rev. Colloquy 30, 39â48 (2012) (disputing this view).
Jump to essay-15Applicability of the Emoluments Clause and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act to the Presidentâs Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, 33 Op. O.L.C. 1, 4 (2009); see also Proposal that the President Accept Honorary Irish Citizenship, 1 Op. O.L.C. Supp. 278, 278 (1963) (assuming that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President).
Jump to essay-16See, e.g., Blumenthal v. Trump, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191, 196 n.3 (D.D.C. 2019) (The parties do not dispute that the [Foreign Emoluments] Clause applies to the President.), revâd on other grounds, Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Jump to essay-17See District of Columbia v. Trump, 315 F. Supp. 3d 875, 882â86 (D. Md. 2018), vacated, 838 F. Appâx 789, 790 (4th Cir. 2021).
Jump to essay-18District of Columbia v. Trump. 838 F. Appâx 789, 790 (4th Cir. 2021).
Jump to essay-19See, e.g., Blumenthal, 373 F. Supp. 3d at 196â98.
Jump to essay-20See, e.g., id. at 197â98.
Jump to essay-21See id. at 199â208; D.C. v. Trump, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 886â904.
Jump to essay-22District of Columbia v. Trump, 838 F. Appâx 789, 790 (4th Cir. 2021); Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 553 (2020).
This picture breaks my heart everytime it appears in my dash. Itâs a fear tactic, alright butâ
The first one in the left corner: Itâs a first communion rosary, and itâs not cheap.
The black one in the first line: Thatâs a widow rosary and itâs old.
The white one in the second line: is a commemoration rosary. It has a miniature picture in the round part. I havenât seen that since the 70â˛s.
In the third line, multicolor one: Itâs an Anima mundi, I have only seen those in the hands of Rosary ministeryâs old ladies. The oldest ones are from the 80â˛s after Juan Pablo II came to Mexico for the first time. Itâs one of the old ones, I know because the crucifixes are different.Â
The third one on the fourth line: Red and gold. The style is old, the metal is dark, thatâs a 50â˛s rosary, probably a quinceaĂąera one (or itâs maybe older, from the 40â˛s when the brides carried red roses with their offerings).
The fifth one on the fourth line: Itâs a quinceaĂąera rosary with Ignatiusâs tear. The style is old and in my part of Mexico is orphan girls who used it. At least it was when I was young.
The third one of the fifth line: the blue one with the anchor. That one I have only seen in Veracruz and it doesnât look new.
The fifth one on the fifth line: Thatâs a 90â˛s wedding rosary. Black and white patterns were popular on that date.
The fourth one on the last line: Thatâs a first communion rosary from the 30â˛s. Itâs delicate and most probably silver.
The rest wrench my heart too, the humble everyday rosaries with wooden beads and knots. Those are cheap and bear the wear and tear of their user handling. But those I described are much more.
Those are motherâs rosaries.
Those are not just rosaries. Those are mementos, thatâs the proof of their families stories. They are taking from them the only portable things they can carry to feel the connection to their families.
Itâs not a fear tactic. Call it like by its name.
Itâs dehumanization.
Rosaries are among personal belongings confiscated from immigrants when they are arrested at the southern border of the United States.
In 2016, David Hill, a volunteer for No More Deaths who is tasked with helping reunite deported migrants with property taken by authorities described to the publication Vice a wide range of confiscated items: âweddings rings, rosaries, and childrenâs artworkâ along with identification cards, money, cell phones and medication:
Due to the 30-day rule and the potential for belongings to be lost between agencies involved, immigrants are regularly deported with only the clothes on their back. No cellphones, no ID, no cash.
The GOP knows that it cannot remain in power without gerrymandering and voter suppression. Yet, even these egregious abuses are no longer sufficient for their avarice to survive unabated. Thus, they are now attacking the very bedrock of our republic by forcing educational institutions to submit to their loyalty tests just as they did during the Red Scare. Because only an uneducated and incessantly misinformed citizenry would ever vote for them after they intentionally destroyed our social safety nets and tanked the economy for billionaires and conglomerates at the expense of the working class.
Republicans are stunningly stupid and bigoted domestic terrorists who incessantly vote against their own interests and then have the temerity to blame Democrats for the actions of the GOP. Vote out every GOP politician from the federal government all the way down to your local animal control officers!
vaporwave
yousharknotpass
dailybridgerton
romaincrisis
blakekathryn
kianamaiart
theartofmadeline
areudirty
origamiaround
