The U.S. Constitution Is Not A Political Weapon

Yesterday, the Maryland and District of Columbia Attorneys General jointly filed a lawsuit against President Trump, citing a violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

First, to clear the air about emolument, the legal definition is: “the profit arising from office, employment or labor.”

President Donald J. TrumpThe clause referred to in our Constitution is toward the end of Article I. Section 9.: “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.”

Our Founding Fathers added this clause as they wanted to ensure that anyone holding a high office serving the people of these United States could not be bribed in order to grant favors to other nations or peoples. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

There is quite a bit of absurdity regarding the charges filed by the two Democratic party Attorneys General against our president.  The suit alleges  that President Trump is “accepting foreign payments while in office.”

A major hole in their legal standing is that the president is not the hotel where the payments are actually made to stay at the luxury hotel. Despite that distinction, regardless of the price of a room at Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, where it is alleged that foreign dignitaries now prefer to stay when visiting our nation’s capitol, it is a drop in the bucket to his net worth (I.E., he could not possibly be bribed for a $1000 per night room stay, especially after all expenses are deducted).

U S ConstitutionWhere were they when?  If these two supposed stalwarts of the U.S. Constitution are so riled up about President Trump and some small amount of hotel income, where were they when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had millions flowing into hers and Bill’s foundation, or into Bill’s personal account (through half-million dollar pay-for-play speaking engagements)?

As people learn through the upcoming educational and highly entertaining movie, In Search of Liberty, the U.S. Constitution was created by the Framers to be the Law of the Land and that it is up to “We the People” to ensure that our elected representatives adhere to it.  As such that means that all citizens are to be held accountable.

It is strongly suggested that, if the DC and MD Attorneys General decide to continue their lawsuit against #45, that they file suit against Bill and Hillary Clinton.  If they do not also go after the Clintons then this lawsuit can be seen for what it is, another politically motivated attack against the sitting president.

Know your rights! Protect your rights!

# # #

Scott D. Welch is a consultant to IC Liberty Films LLC, the distribution and marketing company of the historic enlightening and entertaining movie In Search of Liberty.

Share This:

Travel Bans – Constitutional or Not

There are Federal judges who disagree with President Trump’s travel bans with some going so far as bringing the bans to a halt by stopping their enforcement.  The most recent is U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson who placed an emergency stop on the second ban in response to a lawsuit filed in Hawaii which alleges the order discriminates against Muslims and is, therefore, a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This is purely politically driven as there is absolutely no religious discrimination occurring in either of the bans.

The bans are an attempt to protect American citizens from terrorists regardless of what Watson says.  His ruling states, “a reasonable, objective observer … would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”  I am reasonable.  I am objective.  I am also a Patriot who believes that we need to stop people from any country from entering our country illegally and without being vetted.  Do it legally, as countless others have.  I have absolutely no issue with that at all.

President TrumpIt is interesting that Saudi Arabian Prince Mohammed Bin Salman called President Trump a “genuine companion of Muslims” and did not feel that the ban targeted his Islamic religion.  In a statement he also said, “This measure is a sovereign decision aimed at preventing terrorists from entering the United States of America.”  Does the prince know something the judge does not or, as has been pointed out, is the judge being overly political (which is not his job).

If you don’t think that Watson is making a political statement, call him and ask him where he was when ex-President Obama issued six travel bans, including two bans for any countries “helping Iran and Syria.”  Oh, that’s right, he was appointed to the District Court by Obama.

Only those who know and understand our precious Constitution and Bill of Rights can see what Watson is doing.  He is not protecting a violation of the U.S. Constitution.  He is being political.  Sorry, but that is not in his job description.  As such, he is not doing the job he has sworn to do and gets paid handsomely to do.

And here is a constitutional question … does the Bill of Rights (specifically, in this case, the First Amendment regarding the freedom of religion) apply to America and our citizens (because we adopted the amendment and hold it as part of the Supreme Law of the Land), or does it, somehow, extend to all people of the world (i.e., in other countries).

To learn more about what we are doing to educate people about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, please visit our In Search of Liberty website.

# # #

Scott D Welch is the COO of IC Liberty Films LLC, the production company of the historic educational and entertaining movie In Search of Liberty.

Share This: