Is the President above the law?

[RDD_1210]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

Funny how no snowflake ever asked this question when Barry was violating both Constitution and law....

View attachment 135598

I'm sure I can find a number of links that claim the same about Obama.

But the question is, do you think a president is above the law?

 

[RDD_1210]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

Certainly Obama felt he was above the law, and the Clintons...no need to ask there.

Totally dishonest ^^^ response.

Let's be fair, he doesn't have an opinion yet because he hasn't been told what to think about this topic yet.

 

[task0778]

The fact that any president is subject to impeachment means he is not above the law.

 

[2aguy]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

Please...show us proof......the emoluments clause does not apply to the President but thanks for playing......

 

[easyt65]

But the question is, do you think a president is above the law?

Do I think Presidents are above the law?

Absolutely. I think Congress is both above the law and Constitution. I think the Clintons are above the law. Harry Reid was above the law. Julian Castro was above the law. Eric Holder was above the law. History has shown that they have been above prosecution for violations of the Constitution and Law.

I do NOT, however, believe they SHOULD be. Everyone should be accountable to the law, or no one should be.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...

Following Up On The Foreign Emoluments Clause and Gerrymandering

On the Foreign Emoluments Clause, I noted two competing views of what “emoluments” a federal officer (arguably including President Trump) may not receive from foreign government sources.


Norm Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe advocate a broad view of “emoluments” to cover any sort of commerce between any foreign sovereign entity and the Trump Organization, a view so broad that it would hold President Obama to have violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause every time a foreign public library bought a copy of Dreams of My Father.


That view is being currently pushed in litigation by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), the organization headed by Eisen and Painter.


By contrast, University of Iowa Law Professor Andy Grewal marshalled historical evidence (mainly from the 19th century) showing that the traditional understanding of “emoluments” was limited to salary and other financial benefits attached to the holding of an office, and did not cover outside private business interests. Grewal’s view receives significant additional support from a new originalist analysis by retired University of Montana Law Professor Robert Natelson, author of The Original Constitution:

What It Actually Said and Meant. Prof. Natelson focuses entirely on historical evidence preceding the ratification of the Constitution by the last of the original thirteen states in 1790, including

(1) the linguistic prorgress of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the other two emoluments clauses through the Constitutional Convention,

(2) the background language of the Maryland Constitution of 1776, which also contained an antecedent to the Clause, and


(3) a historical overview of the Anglo-American reform movement from which the three emoluments clauses arose – a movement that emphasized reducing the cost of government, yet also advocated the recruitment into government of men with significant outside business interests.


Among other things, Prof. Natelson examines how the Eisen/Painter/Tribe reading of “emoluments” in the Compensation Clause (which bars the president from receiving emoluments besides his salary from the states or the federal government) would have eliminated Virginia tobacco planters like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison from ever being considered for the presidency, given the nature of state involvement in the tobacco business at the time. He concludes:

Read more at: Following Up On The Foreign Emoluments Clause and Gerrymandering

 

[miketx]

I dont really know about trump saying he is above the law, but i would like an example of where he breaks the emoluments clause. TIA

Is the president above the law? Let's stay on topic.

Take you witch hunt to the romper room.

 

[blastoff]

Just more fodder that will eventually end up on the growing heap of failed or phony allegations the lefty twits tossed around in hopes of soothing their sore cracks in the aftermath of the Hildebeast blowing her second shot at the brass ring.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The president is not above the law.

The blind trust nonsense was started in 1963 by LBJ, 182 years after the signing of the Constitution. It cannot be considered tradition. The idea that someone must destroy their business to serve as president is wacky at best, and was certainly not the original intent.

 

[westwall]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

Actually trump has been very vocal about following the rule of law. The only POTUS I know of who felt he was above the law was mr. "I have a pen and a phone" your hero obummer who is getting to watch his legacy dismantled because he was ruling by ignoring Congress and did his "legislation, and treaty making" by EO.

 

[RDD_1210]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

Please...show us proof......the emoluments clause does not apply to the President but thanks for playing......

It doesn't? Where does it say that?

 

[RDD_1210]

The president is not above the law.

The blind trust nonsense was started in 1963 by LBJ, 182 years after the signing of the Constitution. It cannot be considered tradition. The idea that someone must destroy their business to serve as president is wacky at best, and was certainly not the original intent.

No one is saying he needs to destroy his business. What makes you think that?

 

[Votto]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

Certainly Obama felt he was above the law, and the Clintons...no need to ask there.

My favorite was Obama force feeding us Obamacare only to bypass his own law with an Executive edict

Hell, FDR locked up innocent Japanese Americans cuz of their race, a clear violation of the Constitution and a clear sign he was a racist. However, he still is listed by Progs as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

So yea, they are all above the law.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The president is not above the law.

The blind trust nonsense was started in 1963 by LBJ, 182 years after the signing of the Constitution. It cannot be considered tradition. The idea that someone must destroy their business to serve as president is wacky at best, and was certainly not the original intent.

No one is saying he needs to destroy his business. What makes you think that?

He would be required to liquidate assets, pay capital gains and place remaining monies received in a blind trust.

 

[miketx]

I dont really know about trump saying he is above the law, but i would like an example of where he breaks the emoluments clause. TIA

Is the president above the law? Let's stay on topic.

Take you witch hunt to the romper room.

Almost 21,00 posts. What's your goal for your 2 year anniversary? 40,000?

Total destruction of the democrats.

 

[RDD_1210]

The president is not above the law.

The blind trust nonsense was started in 1963 by LBJ, 182 years after the signing of the Constitution. It cannot be considered tradition. The idea that someone must destroy their business to serve as president is wacky at best, and was certainly not the original intent.

No one is saying he needs to destroy his business. What makes you think that?

He would be required to liquidate assets, pay capital gains and place remaining monies received in a blind trust.

The business would certainly not be anything close to destroyed then.

 

[RDD_1210]

I dont really know about trump saying he is above the law, but i would like an example of where he breaks the emoluments clause. TIA

Is the president above the law? Let's stay on topic.

Take you witch hunt to the romper room.

Almost 21,00 posts. What's your goal for your 2 year anniversary? 40,000?

Total destruction of the democrats.

So yet another thing you'll never accomplish. You ever get tired at failing at everything in life?

 

[iceberg]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

you mean like setting up private servers, getting around congress executive orders parading as laws and the like?

i think many people in that position may feel this way. but when you single out one person and give your side a pass, you come off looking like an agenda and biased as hell.

 

[RDD_1210]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

you mean like setting up private servers, getting around congress executive orders parading as laws and the like?

i think many people in that position may feel this way. but when you single out one person and give your side a pass, you come off looking like an agenda and biased as hell.

So your opinion is.....?

 

[iceberg]

Is the President bound by the laws of our land and the Constitution or is he above all that and not subject to the rules that the rest of us live by?

Trump thinks he's above the law. Do you agree?

Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right

you mean like setting up private servers, getting around congress executive orders parading as laws and the like?

i think many people in that position may feel this way. but when you single out one person and give your side a pass, you come off looking like an agenda and biased as hell.

So your opinion is.....?

trump, as all presidents and people who work for our gov are bound to the same laws we all are. period. end of story. it seems you're asking a stupid question so you can do a giggle - i just got trump, i just got trump - type reaction. you ask a stupid question, pretend trump is against it, then cry foul on something you in the end have no idea is true or not.