Susan became unhappy when a talking head on TV used the term "discontentment." Why not say "discontent"?
Experts sometimes split hairs attempting to develop a slight difference between the two words. I think the two words mean the same thing: (not) content.
I'm fearless when it comes to agreeing with my wife and Shakespeare, who did not write: "Now is the winter of our discontentment."
The Constitution contains several emolument clauses. The Presidential version (art. II, § 1, cl. 7) states that: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased (sic) nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
President Trump violated this clause often, made millions of dollars, and nothing will be done about it. In effect, one of the emoluments clauses in our Constitution is dead because one nutter ignored it.
The Constitution is not real in the sense that my pocket knife is real. The Constitution is real only when we believe in it-- in the sense that Tinker Bell is only real when we believe in her.
We are Wendy.
The purpose of the Ineligibility Clause is to preserve the separation of powers and prevent executive influence on the legislature (and vice versa). The Clause thus prohibits federal officers from simultaneously serving as Members of Congress. Moreover, a Member of Congress may not hold an office if it was established during his tenure or if the emoluments of that office were increased during his tenure.
Officers Subject to the
Emoluments Clauses
In terms of the persons to whom they apply, the scope of the Domestic Emoluments Clause and the Ineligibility Clause is clear from the Constitution’s text: The Domestic Emoluments Clause applies to the President, and the Ineligibility Clause applies to Members of Congress.
The scope of the Foreign Emoluments Clause is less clear. By its terms, the Clause applies to any person holding an “Office of Profit or Trust under” the United States. The prevailing view of the Clause is that this language reaches only federal, and not state, officeholders. According to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has a developed body of opinions on the Foreign Emoluments Clause, offices “of profit” include those that receive a salary, while offices “of trust” are those that require discretion, experience, and skill.
There is disagreement, however, over whether elected federal officers, such as the President, are subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Legal scholars have debated whether, as a matter of original public meaning, the Foreign Emoluments Clause reaches only appointed officers (and not elected officials). The OLC has generally presumed that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President, and the only district court to consider the issue (in District of Columbia v. Trump) came to the same conclusion.
The Meaning of the Term “Emolument”
Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “emolument” as an “advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s employment or one’s holding of office.” There is significant debate as to precisely what constitutes an emolument within the meaning of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, particularly as to whether it includes private, arm’s-length market transactions. The only two district courts to decide this issue (in District of Columbia v. Trump and Blumenthal v. Trump) adopted a broad definition of “emolument” as reaching any benefit, gain, or advantage, including profits from private market transactions not arising from an office or employment, although higher courts have not weighed in on the issue.
Standing to Enforce an Alleged Violation of the Emoluments Clauses
Whether the Emoluments Clauses may be enforced through civil litigation is an open question. The doctrine of standing presents a significant limitation on the ability of public officials or private parties to seek judicial enforcement of
The Foreign Emoluments Clause (art. I, § 9, cl. 8): “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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 Domestic Emoluments Clause (a.k.a. the Presidential Emoluments Clause) (art. II, § 1, cl. 7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
The Ineligibility Clause (art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “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 encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Off
q
Long time standup legend Steven Wright is the Aristotle of sad, one-line jokes. Apparently he goes out for coffee and sits there and lets lines pop into his head. Then he writes them down. Here are two.
1. The earth is bipolar.
2. Jesus loves you because he doesn't know you.
One of my daughters observed that everyone she knew had at least two personalities except for me. I only had one. She saw this as a limitation, like a broken leg, and she was right.
Some of my family, for example, have second personalities reserved for social occasions. In society they bubble with enthusiasm, laugh hard at weak jokes and smile like "My Last Duchess."
I can barely manage a single dour face.
Why does this matter? Humans have become the dominant mammal on Earth for several reasons, but one major reason is our skills in socializing. We can work together. Even I managed to serve in an army.
It takes a patient tribe to raise and educate human children. We had to become extra-social.
This is a good day to remember the time I was walking across the campus at UCLA. My goal back then was a teaching credential. As I started down from the central square (Royce Hall), I came on a small group of students standing around MLK. I joined them, and he talked with us.
This must have been almost sixty years ago. I don't remember what he said, except that it was what you'd expect. And his immense presence.
According to my morning newspaper, Joe Biden "is walking the fine line between deterrence and escalation" in our conflict with the Houthis. But there "is no science to the calculation." Several people on TV referred to Biden's attack on the Houthi as "tit for tat."
In fact, Biden's retaliation escalated the conflict. It was tit for TAAAAAAAAT.
There is a famous method for avoiding escalation that goes back to the Old Testament, the Torah and the Code of Hammurabi.
This is how it would work. The Houthi might fire five missiles at random passing ships and miss. In retaliation, we would fire five missiles back at the Houthi and miss on purpose. In short, we try to duplicate exactly what they did.
The Houthis might next fire ten missiles and hit something. We would do the same.
The lunacy of this chain of automatic responses might become obvious even to leaders living in the Bronze Age, when Hammurabi's Code limited retaliation to a tooth for a tooth.
Ethnic cleansing is the mass killing or expulsion of an ethnic or religious group from a region by a different group. Genocide is the extermination or attempted extermination of a group. Expelling isn't the goal.
I'm trying to understand what is happening.
Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not the same thing, although they are related. (South Africa seems intent on changing what "genocide" means.)
The first recorded genocide occurred when the Israelites attacked the Canaanites at Jericho, where the walls came tumbling down. Men, women and children were put to the Bronze Age sword, along with their domestic animals. (If the ancient story is true.)
In the current ruinous war in West Asia, Hamas has vowed to cleanse the area of Jews, and some leaders in Israel have vowed to cleanse the area of Palestinians.
Our government can and should stop the war. It's a road to hell.
Okay, I guess I understand the claim by Trump and Nixon that when the President does something, it is legal. It's like when an American President picks his nose, what he finds on the end of his finger is creme brulee.
Tom Smothers attended my high school. I believe he started about the time I was leaving. People say that Tom stood in the hall and cracked jokes that weren't funny. Students avoided him.
Tom kept getting better and the Smothers brothers shook up the dusty comedy of their time, mostly with folk music and an improv version of sibling rivalry with a bit of political edge to their work.
Tom ended up settling in Sonoma County; so did my family. Our paths did not cross.
It now occurs to me that hardly anyone is funny in high school.
n
