In the first few years after the Constitution was written, two of the most famous figures in the American Revolution were controversial over fears of unnecessary foreign influences caused by the rich gifts received from European kings. One was a golden snuff box containing 408 diamonds, which was given to Benjamin Franklin by King Louis XVI of France. The other was a horse, and the king of Spain gave it to John Jay. Both gifts were reported publicly to the new federal convention, and both retained the gift despite vocal public objections.
When U.S. leaders quickly drafted a new constitution, the dispute still matured in the hearts of U.S. leaders. They fear that a huge and valuable gift might inappropriately affect U.S. officials’ dealings with foreign countries—a snuff box or horse can psychologically warm one person to another, distorting his ability to put American interests first. To prevent this distortion, drafters made anti-corruption provisions the cornerstone of the new constitution. Indeed, if the frequency of their attention to a particular problem is a measure of their level of attention, few problems are as shocking as corruption, and the original constitution explicitly addressed this problem in four separate instances, and later added a fifth.
President Donald Trump’s self-inculcnation instinct is a horrible example of what the founders hope to prevent: a president who profits from public office. Trump's adventures - about to accept gifts from the Katari jets, profit from selling self-reported cryptocurrencies, auctioning off a chance to have dinner with him - reflects his ignorance of the founder's concern.
The two efforts of the Constitution limiting conflict of interest are direct and obvious prohibitions on the president's profits. One of them (in Article 2, 1) absolutely prohibits domestic gifts to the President: except for compensation for his services, “he shall not receive any other application from the United States or any one during this period.” emulumentThis is a word first recorded in the 15th century, meaning “profits or benefits arising from a site, office, or employment.” That is, it is explicitly prohibited to make money from a person's standpoint by selling benefits to fellow countrymen (e.g., the opportunity to eat with the president).
Article 2 Injunction (in Article 1, 9) is conditional. The President shall not "accept any existing, Muster, office or ownership of any kind, from any king, prince or foreign country without the consent of Congress." In other words, unless Congress affirmatively authorizes the answer to a personal gift (such as the use of an aircraft during or after the president’s service) (such as the use of an aircraft during or after the president’s service). As Trump suggests, rejecting gifts is not "stupid" - it's required by land law, and there is good reason.
In addition to the direct restrictions on the conduct of the president, it is also worth noting that the Impotence clause (Article 4, Article 4) generally authorizes the Impotence each for “high crime and misdemeanor”, two of which are named two (only two) offences, specifically as the reason for the Impotence: treason and bribery – in exchange for gifts in formal bills. Not all gifts are bribes, but some gifts that will be justification for removal from the office.
In addition to these three cases, the Constitution twice addressed the issue of possible profits for other federal officials, namely members of Congress: in Amendments I, Article 6 and 27 (which restricted Congress’ ability to increase its own salary, initially proposed in 1789).
What inspired the founders to fear conflicts of interest? Understanding human nature and respect for history.
First, they recognize that it is easy to buy influence from unprincipled leaders. As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 22: “The weak side of the Republic, many of which are the advantages they can afford to be too easily an entrance to foreign corruption.” He commented on human nature, continuing to explain: “In the Republic, people who are promoted from the masses of the community, from the suffrage of their fellow citizens, to the sites of great and powerful, may be compensated for betrayal of their trust, besides the above virtues that make their sense of responsibility and responsibility exceed the proportion of common stock, and may exceed the proportion of common stock, and may exceed the proportion of common stock. Hamilton believes that, in short, an ordinary citizen may (unless he or she is a person of a "superior virtue") place his own financial interests above the duty to the state.
Congress agreed that the demand for foreign gifts remains. 20 years ago, when I was a secondary official at the Department of Homeland Security (I was the acting assistant secretary for international affairs and had routine interactions with foreign officials) Limiting restrictions on foreign officials as part of my formal duty, it is constitutionally required to be handed over to the department for receipts, processing and storage. The Foreign Gifts and Decoration Act authorizes Congress to agree to keep some small gifts.
Trump proposed to accept the Katari jet (who plans to use it after leaving the office), a country he believes that Qatar is a country that “special royal family” as “we have successfully defended for many years.” This conflict of interest is exactly what the founders are worried about. Now Americans don’t know if Katari’s security continues to be in the best interest of the United States or simply Trump’s desire to please his “special” friend. This is exactly why the makers take a formal approach to demanding Congress’ notification and consent before accepting foreign gifts.
An unfortunate flaw in the founders’ design is that they expect to be ready to comply with the ban on gift receipts. I think that despite the clear discourse of the constitutional text, they hardly thought the president would accept a personal gift. They also cannot easily imagine the president seeking personal gain for himself or his family to gain and influence his decisions.
Perhaps more importantly, in the absence of such compliance, the framework has no doubt, no doubt, the active Congress oversees the obligation to implement consent and is forced to comply with the final remedy of impeachment. They may even have expected to enforce counter-stipulations in court. But today's Congress is on the back - it's probably more important than what they can't imagine. When the Emer’s case was filed in Trump’s first administration, they were postponed until Trump left office and was eventually fired, leaving questions of open status and substantive scope.
All of this puts the country in an extremely uncomfortable place. These Emoluments clauses are part of how the founders try to limit humanity, as they transcend constitutional obligations with selfish victory. But today, in the face of the president's seemingly unwillingness to care about constitutional restrictions, the carefully crafted constitutional restrictions seem unenforceable. The court is invalid and Congress doesn't seem to care. Frame, a suspect will cry.