I wish it were that simple.

First, note that there isn't one emoluments clause, there are two. And they're quite different.

The Foreign Emoluments clause prohibits any officer of the government, which would include the president, though that's not specifically stated, from accepting a "present" from any foreign government. The problem with this is that it's not clear how it's supposed to be enforced with respect to the president. Traditionally, presidents have treated gifts as gifts to the country, and when they wanted to make an exception they asked Congress to authorize it. Mostly. George Washington famously kept a painting the French gave him. Trump, er, took a different approach, simply ignoring the Foreign Emoluments clause, which the Constitution says isn't allowed... but then what? Congress never passed any law defining how exactly the clause was supposed to apply to the president (there are laws about not accepting gifts for pretty much everyone else in the executive branch)... so, how it might work is undefined.

During Trump's first term, a bunch of Congressional Democrats sued Trump for violating the Foreign Emoluments clause, and their suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Courts ruled that individual legislators (much less individual Americans) lack standing to sue over it, only Congress as a body has standing, and Congress as a body hasn't been interested in acting. There were also some suits by DC hospitality businesses claiming economic injury because foreign visitors chose Trump's properties to curry favor. The district court said they didn't have standing but that was reversed on appeal.. but never decided because it was mooted when he left office. The DC and Maryland governments sued and courts went back and forth on their standing, but that was never decided either, then mooted when he left.

So... at present there is no enforcement mechanism unless Congress creates one, or unless the courts decide that someone (and it's not clear who that might be) has standing. And we also have no idea what the remedies might be.

The Domestic Emoluments clause is more precise, but very narrow. It says Congress can't change the president's salary during their term, and that the president can't be paid by the federal government (other than his salary) nor any state government. That says nothing about Wall Street bros buying insider info, people paying for pardons, hodlers buying crypto to get a sit-down... none of that.

Dear child rape enthusiasts still supporting Donald Trump, please die immediately. Thank you.

Yeah, but you support trump, so we know you don't actually care about sexual anything. You're pro child rape.

It was a nice theory but it didn't pan out.

The design you're talking about is 250 years old. It's antique. Notably, the technology of legal language has come very far since. The constitution leaves many questions unanswered to the extent that today any fucking video game EULA is at least ten times more determinate.

It's not productive to use "retard" as an insult.

I propose using "rapeublican" instead.

It's a pragmatic FINANCIAL decision. Five of the top funders of the Linux foundation are hawking LLMs. Linus is typically compromised by the usual capitalistic conflict of interest.

Instead we eventually hired someone who has only read Hitler's book to run our country

We already have, from a leadership perspective anyway

Of course he does. Corporations have made him wealthy. Wealthy people can afford not to have human-centric principles.

America will retake the lead in AI the same way we did with EVs: Just ban the ones from China. Problem solved.

The child who mods down three of my posts in a row every time they get mod points has them again.

If the people who run this site wanted to reduce mod abuse they could do it any time, but they don't want to.

They only want us arguing about stupid shit that doesn't matter to increase the page count so they can show ads for shitlords to morons who haven't figured out how to block them yet.

Remember when this site had benevolent management? Those were the days.

There's a brigade of idiots who are mad that other people know more than they do collecting an apparent majority of modpoints on Slashdot. The design of this site's moderation system can't survive malice, it's pathetic.

If you're deleting any information you think might be requested later as part of a legal case, that is destroying evidence.

No surprise that pro-Trump Apple is pro slavery. They literally see those prior employees as their property.

I agree that decentralization is what's needed. I would argue that we shouldn't even have a president, at least not like we have one now. I don't think that the constitution ever worked well in this area; We just never had a traitor president before, so that part of the constitution didn't have to work so hard.