Democratic U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation on Tuesday that would bar the president and other top officials from accepting payments from foreign governments while in office, a measure clearly aimed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The bill, which has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives as the Nov. 5 election approaches, is aimed at tightening enforcement of the Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause.”
House Oversight Committee Democrats released a report in January that found businesses tied to former President Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments from 20 countries during his four years in the White House.
“For centuries, the President and other high-ranking government officials strictly respected the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Sadly, President Trump’s brazen acceptance of illegal foreign payments and benefits showed the need for clear rules enforcing the Constitution’s preeminent anti-corruption provisions,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who introduced the bill with Representative Jamie Raskin.
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.
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?