RECEIVE FREE UPDATES
    Search this Site!
    Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
    Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

    Defining Emolument

    C H Diaz

    Did our Forefathers intend that all presidents should not have any other means of income as a requirement for attaining the office of President of The United States (POTUS)?

    To answer that, let’s analyze the word, “emolument” and its use in our Constitution.

    First, what is the definition of emolument.

    Legal Definition of emolument, per Webster’s Dictionary:

    emolument

    noun emol·u·ment \i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt\

    1. :  a return arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

    In today’s terms, a salary or perk.

    I happen to agree with this definition of emolument and as I did in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties, Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary,” I would like to break the down the use of the word as used in our Constitution. The word “emolument” is used three times in the Constitution.

    In Article I, Section 6 it states:

    “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 Office.”

    In other words, no Senator or Representative will increase his/her pay while in office.

    In Article I, Section 9 it states:

    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.

    In Article II, Section 1 it states:

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased 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.

    Now let’s replace the word “emolument” with the Webster’s Legal Dictionary definition of the word. In today’s terms the word “emolument” could be replaced with “salary.” Therefore:

    In Article I, Section 6, it would state:

    “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 SALARY 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 Office.”

    In Article I, Section 9, it would state:

    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, SALARY, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    In Article II, Section 1, it would state:

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other SALARY from the United States, or any of them.

    The restriction is used in the context of not allowing the president to receive any other SALARY or gain as for the position of POTUS from any other source, entity, country. the United States or any of the States while in office!

    It says nothing about any money made via investments or profits made from business profits that have nothing to do with the performance of POTUS. I would agree during the time in office no new stock investments should be made without the advice and consent of Congress, but that’s it.

    I also believe the word emolument also states the POTUS should not receive any other “perquisite” or in today’s term “perk” — FOR WORKING AS POTUS.

    Let’s look at the Definition of perquisite as defined in Webster’s Dictionary.

    perquisite

    noun per·qui·site \ˈpər-kwə-zət\
    1. 1:  a privilege, gain, or profit incidental to regular salary or wages; especially:  one expected or promised
    2. 2 :  gratuity, tip
    3. 3:  something held or claimed as an exclusive right or possession

    You must remember the use of the word is used in relation to the POTUS receiving any extra monies or perks for performing the office of POTUS. This is really important to understand.

    The liberal left has done a number on the American People in its continued dominant position in defining our Constitution and its intent. It’s time to stop. It’s time to define the Constitution as it was intended.

    I believe our Forefathers did not intend that any future president not have other means of making money as any other American would make as a businessman. I do believe they intended the office holder could not work for any other entity and receive a salary for working as POTUS. Again, FOR WORKING AS POTUS!

    George Washington owned a money-making farm, did have to sell it? In his last year in office he opened a distillery, was that illegal? Of course, not.

    Does anyone really believe our Forefathers intended the POTUS be a broke dick with no other income because he owned any other business? I say NO!

    The lack of honor within the liberal left forces them to not trust anyone to not use a position of power to enrich himself because they do it all the time. The liberal left, in my opinion, does not trust because they can’t be trusted. If what they say is true, then any oath to not divulge national secrets would not be sufficient for anyone.

    When a POTUS takes office, and makes an oath to not use his position to enrich himself by knowledge gained as POTUS, that should be enough and our Forefathers thought so too.

    What we should do is stop all presidential perks. In fact, the Constitution does not allow perks for the President. IT states In Article II:

    “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased or diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument, “PERK” from the United States or any of them.”

    So, what is a PERK?

    Using Air Force One for campaigning is a PERK.

    Using government aircraft to go shopping in Europe or around the world is a PERK.

    Writing a book and receiving any amount of money while in office is a PERK.

    Being paid for speeches or appearances while in office is a PERK.

    Having parties at the White House that requires White House staff to work is a PERK.

    I could go on, but I think you get the idea. All should not be allowed.

    Donald Trump, hopefully, is the first of many businessmen that will become POTUS.

    Donald Trump should not have to divest himself from any business he may own. All the People require is that he take an oath to not enrich himself via the use of his office.

    I CAN, however, understand the liberal lefts concern in trusting when defining words like emolument, they know Bill and Hillary Clinton.

     

    Please Let me know if you agree or disagree with my definition of emolument.