Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition?
I do not think that the
Present/Emoluments Clause presents an issue of constitutional violation for the reason that virtually all of Congress knows that while president, Trump continues to benefit financially from his far-flung enterprises. I think Congress' knowledge of these financial benefits and lack of any consistent, congressional opposition to Trump receiving them is tantamount to "Consent of the Congress."
Months ago I posed the following hypothetical.
Suppose a televised conference between Trump and Putin.
The conference is in Moscow.
As the conference ends Trump and Putin shake hands after which Putin puts a hand in his pocket to get a valuable gold watch that he hands to Trump. As he hands the watch to Trump Putin says: "I am pleased that you attended the conference. Here is a present for you."
Most of Congress sees Trump's acceptance of the watch or reads about it in newspapers or online news sources.
Congress neither says nor does anything about Trump's acceptance of the watch.
Below is the
Title of Nobility Clause that includes the
Present/Emoluments Clause.
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.
Is Congress' cognizance of Trump's acceptance of the present from Putin and inaction about it tantamount to Congress consenting to Trump's acceptance of the present from Putin?
In the information age of the 21st century I'm curious as to what constitutes Congress' "Consent" to a president's acceptance of "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."