The Instigator
ptosis
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
toocoolblue
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Trump sell/give his business to his children before taking office?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 97604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ptosis

Pro

If vote Pro = Yes he should sell/give business to his children before taking office
If vote Con = No, he shouldn't have to sell/give business to his children before taking office.

My position is Pro, he should sell/give business to his children before taking office for the following 2 reasons:

(1) The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any "person holding any office of profit or trust under" the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state" "without the consent of the Congress." The word "emolument" comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain.
https://www.propublica.org...

(2) Congress can give permission, but that would take up time and distract the country from solving problems. Why? " ... the sole remedy for a violation of the Constitution by a president in office is impeachment, and that the House of Representatives is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense, while the Senate is the sole judge of whether such an alleged violation warrants removal from office." - https://www.propublica.org...

Nixon resigned before impeachment and gave the following reasoning;

"But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.

To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home." - http://www.pbs.org...
toocoolblue

Con

There are two ways to answer Pro's assertions, first by simply pointing out the errors in his understanding of the Laws and the Facts. But that would be way too easy and no fun.

Instead, I will argue that Trump should use his vast wealth as a weapon to achieve goals that previous conservative candidates could only dream of.

The Emoluments Clause does not apply to the President, and even if it did, a GIFT is not a PROFIT. Suggesting that Trump should liquidate his assets, then place them in a blind trust is absurd on many levels. Although some previous Presidents have done this, there is no law requiring them to do so, and for the most part, our former Presidents were not wealthy. According to CNN, Trump owns 144 companies in operating in 25 other nations.
http://www.cnn.com...

Liquidating an empire the size of Trump's would have a disastrous impact on thousands of employees.

Trump is well within his rights to keep running his empire as he sees fit.

In fact, his first act as President should be to give a MILLION DOLLARS to each Republican Congressman and Senator. They say in politics "Early Money Is Like Yeast" and this would send a clear message to other potential donors that the Republican Party is not going to be outspent in the upcoming elections and they better think wisely about where they donate their money in the future. This multi-million dollar donation would be a mere drop in the bucket of his estimated 10 Billion dollar net worth and he would more than recoup that investment in the profits his businesses would make from investing in American companies.

The Carrier deal is a perfect example of how this could work.

Trump just saved 1000 American jobs at Carrier but he could have done more.

What he should have done was announce a Hostile Takeover Bid of UTX (Carrier's parent company) by Trump Industries. (If the banks know what is good for them I'm sure they would be happy to finance this...)

Then after acquiring control of UTX, sell it back to it's employees thus insuring not only do the jobs stay in America but all the profits as well.

Trump would be investing in America, Trump would be saving American jobs, and Carrier's employees would be the big winner as they now would own the company.

Trump should do this again and again and again. First invest in companies that make products in America and then pass laws that cripple competitors that manufacture overseas.

The message would be LOUD AND CLEAR to investors, invest in America and American jobs or else!

No President has ever had the weapon of being able to financially crush his opposition at their disposal and Trump should this weapon without hesitation.
Debate Round No. 1
ptosis

Pro

YP: ....simply pointing out the errors in his understanding of the Laws and the Facts. ... The Emoluments Clause does not apply to the President

1) You accepted this debate as understood under the Emoluments Clause. You want to argue about something else then start you own debate. Don't waste my time.

2) Give valid link and show me 'how easy and no fun" the legal counterpoint is. Just because you said it makes it an opinion if don't back your B.S. with references.
toocoolblue

Con

You would think that when someone tells you that you are wrong about something, the logical thing to do is investigate, perhaps conduct a google search, after all that is pretty easy right?

http://www.cnbc.com...

If he becomes president, Trump would continue to have the ability to own and promote his multitude of businesses " even though some of those business interests are politically sensitive.

Ethics lawyers and presidential law experts say that despite a thicket of rules governing business interests in the executive branch, there is no rule that would prevent Trump from owning or promoting The Trump Organization if he's elected.

While Trump has said he might turn over day-to-day management to his children, he has not ruled out retaining his ownership stake or board seats in his multibillion-dollar global brand empire.

"There's really nothing in the law to prevent him from keeping his business," said Kenneth Gross, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom who has advised several wealthy presidential candidates, Cabinet members and presidential appointees on navigating the ethics rules. "He would have to walk a very fine line and he [would] constantly have to be concerned about these issues. But he could keep it."

https://www.bostonglobe.com...

Trump could be president and still run his businesses
Donald Trump could become president of the United States and still keep his day job as chairman of the Trump Organization and impresario of all things Trump-branded. He could even promote policies that advance his business interests.
Most people in government are subject to fairly strict rules regarding conflicts of interest. Cabinet members, for instance, have to recuse themselves from any decisions that might benefit them financially " including issues that would affect close family members.
But the president and vice president are exempt from these rules.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Congress, under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, did exempt the president and vice president from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.

Most recent presidents " Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton " have placed their personal assets in a blind trust, even if they did not have a legal obligation to do so. President Obama did not, but his assets were only in mutual funds and Treasury bonds.

As always, liberals suddenly find the law to be importance when only applied to conservatives.

Perjury? That's just a personal matter. Besides, how can Bill Clinton be expected to know what the word "is" means? Right?
Cattle Future Trading with no margin call, no matter how large the loss was...Happens all the time.
Illegal email servers, used to shake down foreign governments to fund failed presidential campaigns, so what, besides all that classified information floating around the internet isn't really important is it?

Use the IRS to target people because of their political or religious beliefs? So what?
IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Use the EPA to target people because of their political or religious beliefs? So what?
Judge rules EPA lied about transparency, tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Order the Justice Department to STOP DEFENDING THE LAW? So What?
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced the decision in a letter to members of Congress. In it, he said the administration was taking the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the law
http://www.nytimes.com...

Even the most biased Democrats think the emolument clause in falls into the category of "might be" applied to the President. Not ever has been or ever could be.

http://democrats-judiciary.house.gov...

After Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, Trump can do anything he wants
Debate Round No. 2
ptosis

Pro

Let's go through your references:

1)25 Feb 2016 cnbc Robert Frank | Gross, "He would have to walk a very fine line and he [would] constantly have to be concerned about these issues. But he could keep it."

2) JUNE 08, 2016 bostonglobe Evan Horowitz | But the president and vice president are exempt from these rules. (link to these rules are 404). Broken link

3) November 23, 2016 wp Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee | " Case Western Reserve University law professor Erik Jensen outlined key questions that may arise regarding whether the Emoluments Clause would apply to Trump and his business holdings."

I am using your references and come up questions not answered yet.

The rest of your reference have nothing to do with the question and I don't know why you are using them. Why did you reference the 2013 IRS story, the 2015 EPA story?

At least your last reference is relevant to the question. Thank you.

MEMORANDUM November 22, 2016 Subject: Conflict of Interest and "Ethics" Provisions That May Apply to the President
From: Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division

It mayor may not be legal, according to the reference, but that is not the question is it? I didn't ask if it was legal, I asked if he should divest.

I think he SHOULD divest to avoid the appearance of profiteering via the position of POTUS because using your own references it seems it would create more questions and we need a full time president and a full time Congress that is not distracted by possible business/political conflict of interests. The United States should come first, not second for POTUS. It may hurt the country and it's people if Trump doesn't divest.
toocoolblue

Con

So... after Pro finds out that, in fact, he had no understanding of the law or the facts, he now wants to talk about just , if Trump should sell.

In few days Donald Trump will not be sworn in as our President, he will be sworn in as our Dictator. He will be limited only by what laws he feels like obeying. And this is a disaster.

The notion that Republicans should obey every tiny aspect of even the most insignificant law, while Democrats are busy justifying Perjury and committing overt acts of Treason, is completely insane. I would really like to know what part of the Constitution, Democrats have read, that makes laws applicable only to Republicans.

Trump and any "Dictator" who follows, is now above the law, and we have Obama,Clinton and the people who refused to demand their arrest, prosecution and conviction to thank for that.

Trump's wealth makes him truly the first President in history to be beyond the reach of "Special Interests".

And this freedom puts him in the unique position of being able to accomplish things that no other politician could dare to dream.

And I hope he uses this freedom to teach the Democrats the folly of the "I want my way, at any cost" policy they have been following.

He should order IRS TAX audits of minorities, just like the Obama administration DID!
He should order the EPA to target Gay owned businesses, just like the Obama administration DID!
He should tell the Justice Department NOT TO ARREST people who blow up abortion clinics and in fact, to ARREST the POLICEMEN who TRY to enforce the LAW, just like the Obama administration DID!
http://legalinsurrection.com...

After all, thanks to OBAMA, TRUMP is a Dictator now, who will decide what laws get enforced and what laws get ignored.

Trump doesn't need to consult the House or the Senate, He can rule by Executive Order, just like the Obama administration DID!
http://dailycaller.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
http://www.nationalreview.com...

He should award himself a 5 Billion dollar grant to develop $100,000 dollar electric cars, (for the working man), just like the Obama administration DID!
He should award himself a 2 Billion dollar grant to develop a Solar Power Plant that produces less than half the energy that he promises. just like the Obama administration DID!
He should award himself a 1 Trillion dollar contract to fix the roads, and then not fox them, just like the Obama administration DID!

Of course, I don't actually think he should do any of that, I'm just making a point.
I wonder, what would it take to make Democrats wake up and realize what they have been fighting for.

Obama and the Clinton's ability to escape prosecution and conviction isn't based on any moral or legal standing.
It's based on the fact that most of the crooks in Washington are R.I.N.O.s or D.I.N.O.s, meaning D.emocrat I.n N.ame O.nly or Republican. They have gained power and they mean to get rich and stay in power. Being crooks themselves, they don't want people looking into crimes.

If Trump dropped 10 million dollars into the campaign of the opposition to any of these crooks, it would put the fear of a Higher Power into these jerks and they might actually start working for America.

Democrats don't give a damn about America.
Democrats don't give a damn about the Law.
Democrats don't give a damn about the Constitution.

They want to shove their ideas down everyone else's throats. And if throwing away Government, "Of the People, By the People, For the People" - is the cost, SO WHAT?

So save your whining about what Trump should or shouldn't do.

You fought for a President that is above the Law and now you have one. Enjoy.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.