Trump already in violation of Constitution.

I see. In other words if you were 70 and uber-rich and became president all you'd be concerned with is to save on taxes, increase your already immense move up on the Forbes billionaire list from #45 to #39. Well, I am not surprised. Pretty much every lib/prog has admitted that that's what they'd do

But I suspect Trump who will go down in history as president (good, bad, great, disgraced) is infinitely more concerned with his presidential legacy and place on mount Rushmore than a few dollars saved on taxes and his billionaire ranking.

 

No - your "other words" are putting words into my mouth. Trump has, throughout his life, put himself first. In particular his financial interests.

The idea that such a man would do anything to hurt his own financial interests is ludicrous. He is out for himself, that's all.

 

Not really, it's just that you're judging Trump by yourself, that's what people always do, they expect others to act as they would act in the same circumstances and you clearly show that if you were supper wealthy and became president at the age of 70, you'd dedicate your presidency to saving a few dollars on taxes.

Yeah, that's what business people do....Duh

The idea that any president would be concerned with his place on the Forbes billionaire list and not with his place on mount Rushmore is a ludicrous, childish, naïve nonsense. He does not need more money and he won't go down in history as a billionaire, his legacy for centuries to come will be that of a president, not a businessman.

 

No, I am judging him on his past conduct, where he doesn't care how many people he screws as long as it helps him.

I agree that other people look out for themselves first, but most people also respect business ethics and contracts. He just doesn't care about anyone other than himself.

 

Lol a family of public servants miraculously worth hundreds of millions, taking legalized bribes from Wall Street, setting up a front foundation to accept bribes from tyrants, dictators, theocracies, special interests doesn't bother you one iota but an uber-successful businessman who has made a fortune, created a brand and employed tens of thousands of Americans is bad because he had a few business disputes during his lifetime in business.

Are you for real?

 

Exactly, it's a huge amount of money because it's a percentage of a huge amount of money on the top end.

If you increased the tax rates on those making below 30k a year, the income it would generate would be a pittance because the income amounts are so low.

Like I said earlier, I do believe everyone should be paying SOMETHING, but we also need to make sure that people who make such a little amount of money can afford basic necessities like a place to live, a car, food, medical care, clothes.......living on 30k could put you in a position where you need to CHOOSE between those necessities.

Let's be clear, I'm against handouts but there are a lot of hard working families out there that are barely scraping by on 30k a year. Living on 1-2k a month in net income means any bump in the road is going to throw you into debt. We do not benefit as a nation when people are defaulting on loans and going deep into debt just to survive.

Also, no, I don't believe that those in the top 5-10% of earners were a majority boot-strappers, and I'm one of them. A kid that has parents making 300k a year is going to have the best education available, and a large number of contacts to help them get a good job. Those born into poverty have the deck stacked against them.....they can't afford education, and they have no one to help them get a job. I'm only where I'm at because I joined the military, worked hard, went to electronic schools on the government dime, and earned my degree slowly while I was in.

Let me ask you what I ask some of my friends that complain about their taxes.

If you have the choice between making what you make now, and paying that amount of taxes, would you be willing to lower your income to pay less tax?

 

^ Another instance of left-wing birtherism. Anything to try and get the president they don't like out of office, no matter how unrealistic and silly.

 

Because President Trump is giving all profits derived from foreign guests at his hotels to the US Treasury President Trump will not be receiving a dime in any way from foreign diplomats.

 

just more leftist double standards. they dont give a hoot about the 100's of millions that clinton took when she was SOS

 

First off, I think this is a legal grey area, which will likely go for Trump once it all shakes out.

That said, if this moves forward in a meaningful way, the Discovery process will yeild some very interesting stuff.

 

Thankfully, or more likely one hopes that no one actually relies on you for legal advice. Cry hysterically anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

um....John Kerry? Did he make money on catsup illegally? Story at 10.....

 

But, of course it is. It'll get shot down without going anywhere slowly.

 

So what?

Hey, I'm plenty happy to have enough respect for the Constitution to refrain from offering cockamamie misrepresentations thereof. Too bad you can't say the same.

 

Trump is completely compliant with The Constitution, and will Make America Great Again!

Supreme Court Justice … Ted Cruz?

As a Canadian, he is qualified. In this position he will be able to get to the bottom of the Warren Report.

Ted Cruz would not deny being asked by the Trump administration if he was interested in serving on the Supreme Court.

"Did they ever ask you if you are interested?" Levin asked. "You know, we had conversations about a lot of things, including the court, I like being in the political arena," Cruz replied. To this, Levin repeated, "You were asked, weren't you?"

Cruz has a very strong legal background. He clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and served as solicitor general of Texas, arguing many cases before the Supreme Court. He was both the longest-serving solicitor general in Texas history, and the first Hispanic to take the job.

Cruz is a stalwart conservative with excellent ideas for the Court. In his brief explanation of what he's looking for in a justice, the senator told Levin he would prefer someone "who will follow the Constitution, who will protect free speech, protect religious liberty, protect our right to keep and bear arms." He has been a firm advocate for an Originalist reading of the Constitution, which means he doesn't buy the "living Constitution" activism of many judicial liberals.

The Texas senator gained his name fighting Obamacare on the floor of the Senate, and led the charge against President Obama's disastrous Iran Deal. He has been a consistent leading voice on many issues, and a true believer in returning to a government limited by the Constitution.

Nevertheless, when asked about whom Trump might pick, Cruz demurred. "He said it's going to be from his list of 21, it's a strong list," the Texas senator said.

"Have they contacted you, or any colleagues yet about who they might...?" Levin asked.

"I don't know who he's going to nominate," Cruz explained.

Nevertheless, Levin pressed him, and Cruz finally gave an answer on whether he would like to be on the Supreme Court.

The senator told Levin that he would not prefer to be on the Supreme Court, and would rather keep fighting for conservative ideas in the Senate.

"You and I both know, a principled judge stays out of the political fights, stays out of the policy fights," Cruz explained. "If I was ever a judge, that's what I'd do. I'd follow my oath, and honor the Constitution."

"To be honest, Mark, I don't want to stay out of the political and policy fights — I want to be right in the middle of them," the senator continued. "And the right place to do that is the Senate. It is the elected legislature. Let's take Israel and the UN. If you're a federal judge, you have no business sticking your nose in that. You have to sit there and read the papers and watch it. I don't want to sit quietly aside while Obama goes to the UN and attacks Israel."

Cruz openly declared, "My intention is to stay in the Senate. I think the Senate is going to be the battlefield for all of these fights. And to lead the fights, and to help lead the fights, to defend freedom and to defend the Constitution."

Trump will be able to nominate more than just one Supreme Court justice (Cruz said "two or three strong conservatives"). The president really should select a name on his list (which includes Utah Senator Mike Lee), at least for the first justice. If Cruz ever changes his mind, another slot might be open.

As for who the nominee might be, there is considerable speculation. CBS reported that the list seems whittled down to two men: Federal district court judge Thomas Hardiman and appellate judge Neil Gorsuch. Bloomberg reported that both men have met with Trump, but a source added that appellate judges William Pryor (who served as Sen. Jeff Session's deputy while Sessions was Alabama attorney general) and Raymond Kethledge are also in the running.

Democrats, not surprisingly, are asking for a "mainstream" nominee. They might as well ask an eskimo for a mojito.

Cruz is likely sitting it out for now. But who knows about next time? Never say never.

 

Trump is one thing, your posts are another.

Surely you don't imagine I bothered to read any of that.

 

Trump is completely compliant with the US Constitution.

 

Correct, and thanks to our "progressive" friends the COTUS is now a "living document". So it will be able to adjust to Trump as easily as it adjusted to Obama. Tyvm dear lefty buddies!

 

YES the pay a HUGE amount of taxes while those in the bottom half pay virtually noting so how it that so if the high earners rigged the system for themselves as was claimed?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

They pay nothing, because they have nothing.

What I'm talking about is that anyone making $250k a year and hates paying a lot of money in taxes is more than able to quit and take a job paying $30k a year so that they can pay no taxes.

How many people do you think have made that choice? Yeah, nobody.

 

Here is the relevant words from Article 2: "The President ..... shall not receive within that period [of the term] any other emolument from the United States, or any of them."
It says absolutely nothing about owning a business or investments of any sort. Nor does it say anything about money from foreigners.

Some often cite these words from Article 1, Section 9: "......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."
Again it says absolutely nothing about owning a business or having investments. Moreover, the president and vice president are not "office holders of profit [paid] or trust [unpaid]." Further it most probably does not apply to elected congresspersons if for no other reason that congress can pass exemptions.

And, by the way, it is partly true that the president cannot do anything illegal. It is absolutely true as president per se. A (former) president can be charged with a crime only after he has been removed from office through impeachment and if he hasn't pardoned himself.

 

This is, of course, absolute nonsense.

The Constitution says:
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.

The lease payment for an office suite does not qualify as any of the above.

 

That link had nothing to do with the RNC. It was the views of a single former Bush admin official.

 

Trump is compliant with the Constitution using a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

 

Bowerbird makes up the (*)(*)(*)(*) as she goes along.

 

Yes, Trump will almost certainly do nothing to violate either the letter or intent of the COTUS.