It Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[alexa]

An interesting article on the field of corpus linguistics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.87bc9a3e03ec

[Peter1469]

An interesting article on the field of corpus linguistics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.87bc9a3e03ec

You do your thread injustice. This is actually a cool topic for history geeks. You should include a tease in your post.

The emoluments clause has its place, however, almost nobody today knows what that place is. To include WaPo.

Research what our first president did with his business interests while president and after. That will establish a base-line of acceptable conduct.

And then when we look at today, we relax. We have not approached the historical lines.

[Chris]

Also you might include a brief blurb from the WaPo piece for those of us unwilling to pay to access it. Had no idea this was about the emoluments clause.

Just saying.

[Peter1469]

Also you might include a brief blurb from the WaPo piece for those of us unwilling to pay to access it. Had no idea this was about the emoluments clause.

Just saying.

I can't find the link now, but a year ago WaPo published an article about George Washington and how his business interests exceeded Trumps with regards to links between business and government.

Basically, most people today have zero clue about emoluments. I chalk it up to public schools.

[DGUtley]

There's a law review article that discusses how the Presidency is not an office of trust or profit. The text of the clause is:

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 article discusses that "Office of Trust" and "Office of Profit" are terms used during the time the constitution was written and that the Presidency was not one of them. The article concluded that the emoluments clause did not apply to the presidency. I had saved it but we changed firms and I can't find it now.

[Chris]

I can't find the link now, but a year ago WaPo published an article about George Washington and how his business interests exceeded Trumps with regards to links between business and government.

Basically, most people today have zero clue about emoluments. I chalk it up to public schools.

I know little about it, admittedly, but will follow this thread closely.

[alexa]

You do your thread injustice. This is actually a cool topic for history geeks. You should include a tease in your post.

The emoluments clause has its place, however, almost nobody today knows what that place is. To include WaPo.

Research what our first president did with his business interests while president and after. That will establish a base-line of acceptable conduct.

And then when we look at today, we relax. We have not approached the historical lines.

I was more interested in its (the methodology) acceptance by the courts, including Roberts and Thomas.

No, what George Washington did 200 years ago does not establish a baseline for presidential conduct today.

[DGUtley]

I was more interested in its (the methodology) acceptance by the courts, including Roberts and Thomas. No, what George Washington did 200 years ago does not establish a baseline for presidential conduct today.

Maybe not, but doesn't it help indicate what they meant when they wrote the Constitution?

[alexa]

Maybe not, but doesn't it help indicate what they meant when they wrote the Constitution?

Not particularly.

Washington was sui generis.

[MisterVeritis]

Not particularly.
Washington was sui generis.

Isn't everyone?