"wait it's not already?!" - every rational person reading this.
this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
369 points (98.4% liked)
News
23320 readers
4516 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is and it has been since 1787, but there's no functional difference between a law not being enforced and the thing the law's about being legal.
(Art. I, § 9, cl. 8): “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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.”
(Art. II, § 1, cl. 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.”
(Art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
Wouldn’t it just be easier to enforce the one that’s already a law. And if what is already a law isn’t being enforced then, what makes this new law more enforceable?
This is political theater to keep the fact that we (probably) had a foreign agent as president in people's minds.
I haven’t forgot, just like i haven’t forgot the administration has threatened sanctions to the international criminal court because they have evidence of US backed genocide.
Precisely.
It absolutely would. Unfortunately, if I remember the details of this circus when it was happening, there are no criminal penalties attached to those amendments, so the only people who can do anything about it are Congress. And what happens if Congress is controlled by your party? Well, exactly what happened when Trump was impeached twice for actions that were at least as significant...
(Art. I, 9, cl. 8): "[NJo Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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'
Unfortunately this doesn't sufficiently cover things like 'Random Russian Billionaire Oligarch" so long as there is the slightest modicum of a veil of separation from "any King, Prince or State".
So for example, as long as Putin secretly tells his billionaire buddy to go pay off Trump and to keep it hush hush, this clause is even more toothless than it already is in practice.
This is literally already in the US Constitution, but no one will enforce it. What makes you think this will end any differently?
Specific laws are often needed in order to enforce the constitution. Legislation can go into greater detail and eliminate ambiguities and grey areas. And it can add an actual enforcement mechanism, since the constitution doesn't generally include any actual penalties.
That also means that law enforcement agencies can pursue those cases. That's a hell of a lot better than relying on congress to impeach someone.
This particular bill might be redundant, but only if existing laws adequately cover these issues. I'm not familiar enough with current laws on the topic to say one way or the other. Not that it matters much when this bill has no chance of becoming law anyway.
Specific laws are often needed in order to enforce the constitution.
I realize what you say is true in practice, but JFC it's so fucked up. If a provision of the Constitution can't be enforced without legislation, then that part of the Constitution is simply meaningless. Why do we accept judges treating the Constitution as nothing more than a polite suggestion to Congress?
Why limit it to foreign governments, and why limit it to the president?
Hell why not limit congress and the president to the conditions of the lowest quartile?
It's not like billionaires and corporations interests are any more aligned with the people than foreign governments. This has the bonus effect of essentially banning Trump if he doesn't want to give up his wealth.
"The bill would prevent high-ranking officials, also including members of Congress, from receiving payments directly or indirectly from foreign governments through businesses they control and create penalties for unauthorized acceptance of foreign payments. The ban would apply for two years after leaving office unless Congress authorized an exception."
From the arricle.
foreign governments should not be limited to while in office. taking an office should mean foregoing that type of thing in your life.
Will this prevent AIPAC from buying politicians?
AIPAC claims to be a domestic american organization so their single issue goal of serving a foreign power is not considered 'foreign'.
So that's fun.
We’re better off packing the court and nullifying Roberts’ traitorous decision to sell out the country to russia.
I'm waiting to hear the orange asshole's complaints about how unfair it all is.
How much do you want to bet that de facto Israeli government agencies such as AIPAC are exempt from these WAY overdue rules?
Probably have a loophole due to being headquartered in the US.
That and due to the vast majority of federal elections involving AIPAC funding for or against at least one of the candidates.
AIPAC bribes and/or blackmails almost all of Washington. They're the ethnostate equivalent of the fossil fuel lobby and intimately intertwined with the military industrial complex.
This says it would strengthen enforcement but it does not really say how. We've already seen Trump ignore Emoluments Clause because it does not lay out any punishment.
Automatic shot down commencing.