Cash Will Not Be Accepted By The Public Service: Fill & Download for Free

The Founders never intended that elected officials divest from their businesses. They would be appalled at the notion.Elected officials were supposed to be performing public service, at their own expense, and at the end of their service, to return to their homes and businesses. Being a member of Congress or an elected official was NEVER intended to be a career.. especially an incredibly lucrative career that has made almost every member of the Senate and Congress a millionaire by the time they leave office.The Emoluments Clause was to prevent officials in offices of public trust from accepting things of value from foreign nations that might corrupt their decisions. You know, like a sitting Secretary of State hitting up foreign nations to “contribute” $millions and tens of $millions of dollars to her family slush fund thinly masquerading as a charitable foundation.. where only a paltry fraction actually went to any projects. Projects that for the most part never accomplished anything worthwhile except to enrich Clinton cronies. Haiti calling… where are our repairs and new construction? Read Clinton Cash.Hillary visited over a hundred countries while Secretary of State, but when she was asked during her 2015–16 Presidential campaign, she was unable to name a single accomplishment from all that globetrotting on the public wallet. Except of course the hundreds of $millions accumulated by her Foundation. What came of it? Well, the Uranium One scheme, for example. And lets not forget the wildly overpriced millions of dollars paid to Bill Clinton for speeches in bizarre places like Kazakhstan… while Hillary was SOS. All such charitable contributions mysteriously ceased the moment she lost the Presidential election, when she no longer had anything worth bribing for.That, folks, preventing bribery of public officials, is the actual purpose of the Emoluments Clause. The witch hunt against Trump is just that, until Hillary is subpoenaed and indicted for her own outrageous violations of the Clause.

Obama was subject to the emoluments clause. He received the Nobel Peace Prize from a foreign government which included a medal (a thing of value) and an amount of cash. As per the Constitution, Obama submitted this before the fact to Congress to see if he could accept the prize. Congress allowed him to keep the medal if he pledged to place it in his public library when it was built, but told him he must designate a charity of his choice to receive the funds. He complied with the emoluments clause of the Constitution as have all the Presidents before him until Trump. In a very few cases, Congress has allowed Presidents to keep some items as long as they are alive, but cannot sell such or will such to anyone and the estate must return the item to the Department of the Interior or other designated agency.At the time Trump became president, he could have followed the Constitution’s requirement and asked Congress if his businesses could receive funds from foreign governments and lobbyists and federal employees. Being Republicans, they probably would have given him authorization for everyday routine business where he did not invite foreign dignitaries to stay in his hotels. They might have even let federal employees like the Secret Service pay to stay there. They might, or might not, have let lobbyists doing business with the government to stay there, something else that is forbidden without Congressional approval.But Trump, in his arrogance and thumbing his nose at the rule of law, did not request approval from what he sees is an inferior branch of government that has no control or authority over anything he does - even when originalists realize such is plain as day in the Constitution.Edit: I relied on an article in Newsweek at the time that said Obama had submitted this before Congress. Actually, he did, but the Justice Department sent a ruling saying that a 1902 law passed by Congress allowing Presidents and other top officials to accept Nobel Prizes (two other Presidents have received them). A commentator pointed out my error and challenged me to do more research, which I did.But the point is still valid that Obama’s Justice Department thought he was subject to the clause, but found previous Congressional approval for this specific “gift” that set a precedent for one other President before Obama.Edit 11/26/2019: I have left a comment that stated Trump is allowed to make a profit off his hotels based on a Supreme Court ruling and then changed to a Federal Court ruling by the commenter. neither are correct or factual. A suit by the states was dismissed by the judge because they did not have standing. So 200 members of Congress are in the process of suing to clarify whether or not Trump Hotels and other business income (not just profits) is a violation. The case has not yet been resolved, so no court has ruled on the merits of the case. The argument that a court has allowed or found in favor of trump is false.Edit 12/1/2019: Thank you for the views, comments and upvotes. There have been many extensive comments stating why Trump’s businesses should not be considered under any prohibition or concern. I suggest that those authors might consider writing their own response to the question instead of a reply to mine. Those answers would get more views than a reply to my comment and might encourage further thoughts about this matter. So if your reply was deleted by me, this may be the reason why. I choose not to debate with you about this murky subject, and Quora allows you to write your own answer.

I think a lot of work still needs to be done. Some cryptos are on it. Some things that need to be done are:human readable addressesthe concept of a UTXO must not be required to be understood to understand how cryptos workThe speed of an accepted transaction should be competitive with credit cards (7 seconds)low bar to swapping cryptos (i.e. atomic swaps) and getting into fiat (the only place regulation needs to be involved)a gamified crypto ecosystem that encourages people to participate, thus further expanding, decentralizing an securing cryptocurrencyPrivate transactions must be availableAnd obviously a mobile wallet that is so easy to use you grandmother and child can use it.easy, plug in type services to expand the utility of the wallet. For example, escrow services that create “2 of 3” multisignature wallets, or time locked accounts to replace government insured banking transactions.governance systems such that user can help to alter and improve the way the currency runs, rewards, and donates.Given this list, I think DASH is really leading the pack. However it is weak on being an inclusive crypto since the masternodes are so expensive, and they provide no cross chain functionality in their wallet. But they are fast and private and have a great community.It not fully cooked yet, but the only other currency that I know of that will meet all of these points is DIVI. But I have no doubt that others will duplicate efforts so that when this list is knocked off, crypto will be used globally as cash.