Is the emoluments clause enforceable?

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
Take that argument to Alexander Hamilton. I simply showed the thinking of the people at the time the emoluments clause was created.

You most certainly did not. The Senate asked for a list of officials in the US for oversight purposes; of course he wouldn't have included elected officials- the Senate already knew who they were and how much they got paid.

The idea that the clause was meant to cover minor officials performing ministerial duties, but not those who held positions of real power is frankly absurd.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You most certainly did not. The Senate asked for a list of officials in the US for oversight purposes; of course he wouldn't have included elected officials- the Senate already knew who they were and how much they got paid.

The idea that the clause was meant to cover minor officials performing ministerial duties, but not those who held positions of real power is frankly absurd.

You are arguing with the wrong person. It is ludicrous to think they didn't know who was working for them

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
You are arguing with the wrong person. It is ludicrous to think they didn't know who was working for them

It is hardly "ludicrous" to believe that the US Senate in 1792 didn't know every official working for the US government and how much they were paid. That is certainly information that might need to get from the Treasury Department.

But since the purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from corruptly influencing government officials, it is ludicrous to imagine they meant to exempt those who actually could make policy.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
It is hardly "ludicrous" to believe that the US Senate in 1792 didn't know every official working for the US government and how much they were paid. That is certainly information that might need to get from the Treasury Department.

But since the purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from corruptly influencing government officials, it is ludicrous to imagine they meant to exempt those who actually could make policy.

"in 1792, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was instructed to report to the Senate “every” person holding “office … under the United States” and their salaries. His ninety-page list included every appointed officer, including those in the legislature, such as the Clerk of the House, but excluded elected officials such as the President, Vice President, and members of Congress. This suggests that some definitions of office will turn on whether one is elected rather than which branch one is in."

Again...the thinking at the time.

Just curious...was G Washington violating the clause?

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
"in 1792, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was instructed to report to the Senate “every” person holding “office … under the United States” and their salaries. His ninety-page list included every appointed officer, including those in the legislature, such as the Clerk of the House, but excluded elected officials such as the President, Vice Pres ...[text shortened]... "

Again...the thinking at the time.

Just curious...was G Washington violating the clause?

The "thinking" was to prevent foreign governments from influencing US policy by essentially bribing US government officials. Exempting the ones actually making policy would make the clause worthless.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
The "thinking" was to prevent foreign governments from influencing US policy by essentially bribing US government officials. Exempting the ones actually making policy would make the clause worthless.

you avoided my question

Originally posted by @mchill
SH - If you don't really see a mechanism by which they enforce it, then what's point in having it? Is this a law, or just a set of suggested guidelines?

Maybe it's time to re write this piece of legal wisdom in such a way that it can be enforced, free of interference from the President or Congress, and carries with it substantial penalties for violating ...[text shortened]... ght now it's about as useful as a 1797 city ordinance about walking your dog after midnight. 😞

Talk about post hoc wish fufillment!

Although a case could be made for traffic infractions which prop up city coffers whilst offering a pretense for public safety, the basis of law are the ideas and concepts which undergird them.

You're wanting a whip and a post even though you lack a solid purpose to initiate flogging.
Why your fill-in-the-blank rule is important is no minor consequence: it is the impetus for the effort... and yet you just want to induce pain and suffering regardless!