You need to be more specific. If you mean the emoluments clause, I think it's more accurate to say that it's hard to verify whether he meets "the requirements set forth in the Constitution." If you know of an instance of his business accepting a gift from a "king, prince or foreign state" since he's assumed office, then he's actually in violation.
> He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses.
There is also that. Although I think a not insignificant fraction of that party would much prefer Pence, and if they were going to oust him doing it as far from the next election as possible would seem preferable.
he barely slid in a electoral vote disaster, despite the electoral vote being meant to be used against men like Trump
Did you not pay attention to the election at all?
Looking at a number of swing states with significant numbers of electoral votes can, though. The margin of victory was just over 1% in Florida (29EV). It's less 1% in Pennsylvania (20EV) and Wisconsin (10EV). Michigan (16EV) was less than .25%.
That's 75EV won by that thin a margin. Half that could have swung the election.
(And yes, you can play this game the other way, but the only state Clinton won that was that closely contested was... New Hampshire, 4EV)
The election was quite close. Trump's electoral victory was very thin.
That's the state of affairs to be expected when the EC winner loses the popular vote.
He could have lost FL _or_ OH and still won.
So, did Trump win by a lot when you take out California and New York? Yes. He also lost by a lot when you take out the South. Population is the only fair metric for weighting regions against each other. The South is not entitled to control everyone else's lives, especially since they're the damned region that demanded extra Representatives for their slaves.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place that actively punishes voter suppression. Voters per inhabitant ratio and election turnout could be used to penalize states with low engagement to ensure voter suppression does not occur.
It, however, removes the penalty for suppressing votes because the remaining votes continue to have a fixed weight.
Also, the "CA and NY would run the US" is an extremely weak argument. It's logically equivalent to saying that Texas and Oklahoma are currently running the US, since their electoral votes are sufficient to swap the winner from Trump to Clinton.
Actually, I don't think it's equivalent, since basically no Congressional majority or Presidency has been won without the South for the past 50 or so years. You can actually estimate which party will be dominant in an American party system by looking at who consistently holds the South, irrespective of how other regions vote.
So California and the Northeast can consistently vote one way, and it basically just doesn't matter if the South happens to disagree.
How's that a landslide victory?
Payments in exchange for regular business which would have been engaged in anyway would seem not to apply, although there's disturbing room for corruption there.
"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." [1]
Add to that:
- The lack of case law or Congressional guidance;
- George Washington receiving and accepting "two gifts from officials of the French government" without asking for nor receiving any Congressional consent [2]; and
- Almost every Founding Father from the South operating their plantations while in public service.
I think it's safe to say (at least as a non-Constitutional scholar) that this clause is far from definitive on anything. Please note that I am not defending Trump's behavior nor saying this clause cannot be interpreted to apply. I'm saying we cannot comment on this with any reasonable degree of certainty.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/17/would-trumps...
What nation, looking to create a favorable deal of some kind with the US, would allow a Trump project to languish in frustrating red tape -- or allow a Trump project to lose out to a competitor in cases where the government is the decision-maker? What would the informal Trumpian chatter be like around that international negotiating table?
Whether it does or not is ultimately something that'll have to be decided in court.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. 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." [1]
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 cl., 7 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." [2]
There isn't a lot of case law surrounding these clauses [3] nor guidance from Congress. It could be an impeachable offense, though frankly that's true of anything. Impeachment is a political, not judicial, process.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emolumen...
Nope. They've had lawyers on this for a while, and I think he's ok on it.
FYI - do you know how many Republican secretly wished that Trump were 'gone'? Probably most of them. He's a) a loose cannon and b) not actually a conservative on many issues.
I think he's legally in the clear on his ownership issues.
I would hope so, because frankly Trump is such a loon that I would rather Mike "electrocute the gay away" Pence, but...
Sigh.
He isn't being impeached because his party controls both houses.