Can people here, like, NAME their sources?

[moriah]

"My sources say...."

Why should that be credible when you don't bother to name your sources? People on here are pseudonyms on the great Internet. We have no clue who you are, so why on earth should we take you seriously?

Yes, Boz, this is directed to you.

And now, why your "sources" are wrong as hell...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article 1, section 6:

"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 increased 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."

As you note, this has been gotten around several times, most recently to my recollection with Lloyd Bentsen's appointment as Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. The very tiny increases that were made by executive order (by Bush, no less) can be turned down.

Article 1, 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."

This is that cute neat nifty thing you say cannot be gotten around by Congress.

First, it says right there that "without the Consent of the Congress".

Second, it says a person holding an office cannot accept it -- not that a person who has ever accepted a gift.

Third, it says a person holding an office, not a person's spouse. You say this can be applied to a spouse, but I'd love to see where it has in the past. Precedents are pretty important.

--------

Ya know, I'd be fine if Hillary Clinton's name was never mentioned again. I'd be fine with the Clintons dropping off the face of the earth, even though I don't think they are the evil creatures that so many seem to believe they are, just so that people would stop getting their panties in a wad about them.

Obama won the primary, Hillary didn't. Obama won the election, not McCain or Hillary.

YOU WON. (We ALL won, in point of fact.)

Why can't you be graceful winners? Why can't you let the guy YOU elected make his own choices?

....

And in God(dess)'s name, I beg you...

Name your sources before coming on here to post bullshit just to get a thread with 100+ replies.

</end rant>

[ddeclue]

1. Basic English Grammar alone is enough to refute the Emoluments clause:

As I said previously:

The OPERATIVE PHRASE that debunks this: "and no person HOLDING any office "

Note that it does NOT say:

and no person who HAS HELD any office

OR

and no person who WILL HOLD any office

"Holding" is the PRESENT tense gerund form of the verb "to hold". It means some "who currently holds".

This is a CONDITIONAL clause, meaning it poses conditions on the rest of the sentence -specifically it imposes the condition of applying ONLY to persons who currently hold an office.

The rest of the sentence reads in short that no person may take gifts.

The conditional clause thus makes this no person who currently (presently) holds office may accept gifts.

This is an entirely DIFFERENT meaning than the Boz (or his source) is claiming that the taking of a gift when someone is NOT in an office subsequently disqualifies that person from a later appointed office.

In order for that to make sense the sentence would need to be RE-written to read:

No person having accepted gifts (from King etc.) without the consent of Congress may hold appointed office.

or something similar that indicates a PREVIOUS action is the condition for present refusal of appointment to office as in CAUSE and EFFECT.

The problem for Boz's post was that ALL the verbs and gerunds in this sentence are in the PRESENT tense which makes it impossible to have a CAUSE and EFFECT relationship since nothing precedes or follows.


I am NOT in favor of Hillary Clinton becoming SecState as my numerous posts in the last week have stated but the Emoluments clause simply is NOT a valid way to prevent her from being appointed to this office.

(I too asked him to go on the record with the source after refuting the argument on grammatical grounds.)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[elleng]

2. Like,

sure.

[TankLV]

3. No.

You have to name YOURS...

[moriah]

4. My sources? The purple elephants told me!

I know some people say the pink elephants know more, but the purple ones have been the most reliable for me.

[bluestateguy]

5. Real men go on the record. Cowards hide behind anonymity

nt

[Jennicut]

6. Where does the press get these damn sources from anyways.

Anyone can claim to be a source.

[grantcart]

7. Thats not what somebody told me.

[undeterred]

8. Some of them, like, name their PENISES.