a Girl Power Academy THANKs YOU JOHN LEWIS!
To see the video and read full article go to:
In an exclusive interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said he does not believe Donald Trump is a “legitimate president,” citing Russian interference in last year’s election.
Asked whether he would try to forge a relationship with the president-elect, Lewis said that he believes in forgiveness, but added, “it’s going to be very difficult. I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”
When pressed to explain why, he cited allegations of Russian hacks during the campaign that led to the release of internal documents from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign co-chairman, John Podesta.
“I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton,” Lewis told NBC News.
Trump appeared to acknowledge this week that Russia did engage in hacking during the campaign, but he has vigorously argued that any foreign interference had no impact on the election’s outcome.
Trump fired back at Lewis questioning his legitimacy as the incoming president in a pair of tweets Saturday morning, saying that the long-serving Georgia Congressman should “spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results.”
Lewis, also a recognized civil rights leader, represents a district that covers most of metropolitan Atlanta as well as historically black schools, including Morehouse College and Spelman College.
Lewis told NBC News that he does not plan on attending President-elect Trump’s swearing-in next Friday.
“It will be the first one that I miss since I’ve been in Congress,” he said. “You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong, is not right.”
CNN’s Caroline Kenny contributed to the following report:
Washington (CNN)A growing number of Democratic lawmakers are boycotting President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, particularly after revelations of Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election and his rebuke of civil rights icon John Lewis on Saturday.
Some members of Congress have said they will be protesting in Washington, D.C., and in their districts instead.
Here’s a list of Democrats who have publicly said they won’t be at Friday’s ceremony:
Georgia Rep. John Lewis:
The civil rights icon declared Friday that he would boycott the event because he doesn’t see Trump as a “legitimate” president in light of Russian interference.
“You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong,” Lewis told NBC News.
(Trump harshly responded Saturday, calling Lewis “all talk” and “no action” and saying he should focus more on “fixing and helping” his district rather than “complaining” about the Russia’s role.)
California Rep. Mark Takano:
“‘All talk, no action.’ I stand with @repjohnlewis and I will not be attending the inauguration,” Takano tweeted Saturday.
New York Rep. Yvette Clarke:
“I will NOT attend the inauguration of @realDonaldTrump. When you insult @repjohnlewis, you insult America.”
California Rep. Ted Lieu:
“For me, the personal decision not to attend Inauguration is quite simple: Do I stand with Donald Trump, or do I stand with John Lewis? I am standing with John Lewis,” Lieu said in a statement released by his office.
Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva :
“I will not be attending the inauguration of Donald Trump as our next president,” the Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair said Friday on the House floor. “My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy, but as an individual act, yes, of defiance at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration, and the actions we are taking in this Congress.”
Michigan Rep. John Conyers:
The office of Conyers, the dean of the United House of Representatives, confirmed to CNN he won’t be attending the inauguration.
California Rep. Mark DeSaulnier:
“It is with a heavy heart and deep personal conviction that I have decided not to attend the #TrumpInauguration on January 20, 2017,” the California lawmaker tweeted Friday.
New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez:
Velazquez tweeted Friday that she will be participating in a women’s march protesting policies that activists say are harmful to American women.
“I will not be attending inauguration of @realDonaldTrump but WILL participate in the @womensmarch on January 21st,” she tweeted.
Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader:
“I’m just not a big Trump fan. I’ve met the guy and never been impressed with him,” he told Oregon Public Broadcasting Friday. “I’ll do my best to work with him when I think he’s doing the right thing for the country. But he hasn’t proved himself to me at all yet, so I respectfully decline to freeze my ass out there in the cold for this particular ceremony.”
Missouri Rep. William Lacy Clay:
The lawmaker’s spokesperson told the St. Louis Post Dispatch that Clay will be in his home state speaking to schoolchildren.
California Rep. Barbara Lee:
Lee said she’ll spend the day “preparing for resistance.”
“Donald Trump has proven that his administration will normalize the most extreme fringes of the Republican Party. On Inauguration Day, I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance,” she said Thursday in a statement.
New York Rep. Jose Serrano:
“I will not attend the #inauguration2017 next week- cannot celebrate the inauguration of a man who has no regard for my constituents. #Bronx,” he tweeted Thursday.
California Rep. Judy Chu:
“After much thought, I have decided to #StandWithJohnLewis and not attend the inauguration,” Chu tweeted this weekend..
Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez:
“I cannot go to (the) inauguration of a man who’s going to appoint people to the Supreme Court and turn back the clock on women and turn back the clock on immigrants and the safety and freedom that we fought for them,” Gutierrez said last month on CNN’s “New Day.”
California Rep. Jared Huffman:
“I have decided that instead of attending the inaugural ceremonies in Washington this month, I’ll spend time in California with my constituents making a positive difference in our community,” he wrote on Facebook Tuesday. “From helping to build homes for local families to pitching in on cleaning up flood debris to welcoming new US citizens at a naturalization ceremony — it will be an action-packed couple of days. Stay tuned here for more details.”
Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark:
“I support the peaceful transition of power, but I don’t feel that I need to attend the pageantry associated with and for this president,” she told the Boston Globe earlier this month.
Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer:
“There is unprecedented concern by my constituents about the many threats posed by a Trump administration seeking to implement the President-elect’s policies on health, environment, nuclear weapons and immigration, to name but a few,” he said on Facebook.
New York Rep. Adriano Espaillat:
“Many have given their lives and dedicated their lives to working to fulfill Dr. King’s dream and make it a reality, and it is up to us to preserve his legacy and the legacy of President Barack Obama to ensure that we do not go back in time! President-elect Donald Trump is trying to take us back! And the people Trump is appointing– Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions — are trying to take us back!
“That’s why I am not attending the presidential inauguration. Donald Trump and the hate-filled rhetoric that plagued his election simply will continue in his administration. THIS is not Dr. King’s Dream!” Espaillat issued the statement on his Facebook page.
Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal:
.@realDonaldTrump: @repjohnlewis stands for best of everything in America. If anyone knows about action not words, it’s him. #ImWithJohn
Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan:
“After reading classified Russian hacking doc & @realDonaldTrump offensive tweets to @repjohnlewis I will not be attending the Inauguration.”
Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge:
“As I told @JoyAnnReid, I will not be attending #Inauguration. I will be at home in Cleveland. #IStandWithJohnLewis.”
California Rep. Maxine Waters:
“I never ever contemplated attending the inauguration or any activities associated w/ @realDonaldTrump. I wouldn’t waste my time.”
The Emoluments Clause:
To view the original link and or more essays and teachers lessons about the constitution go to:
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.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8
For the Teachers PDF lesson click here: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/content/pdf/lesson-2.pdf
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation was the source of the Constitution’s prohibition on federal titles of nobility and the so-called Emoluments Clause. The clause sought to shield the republican character of the United States against corrupting foreign influences.
The prohibition on federal titles of nobility—reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4—was designed to underpin the republican character of the American government. In the ample sense James Madison gave the term in The Federalist No. 39, a republic was “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during good behavior.”
Republicanism so understood was the ground of the constitutional edifice. The prohibition on titles of nobility buttressed the structure by precluding the possibility of an aristocracy, whether hereditary or personal, whose members would inevitably assert a right to occupy the leading positions in the state.
Further, the prohibition on titles complemented the prohibition in Article III, Section 3, on the “Corruption of Blood” worked by “Attainder[s] of Treason” (i.e., the prohibition on creating a disability in the posterity of an attained person upon claiming an inheritance as his heir, or as heir to his ancestor). Together these prohibitions ruled out the creation of certain caste-specific legal privileges or disabilities arising solely from the accident of birth.
In addition to upholding republicanism in a political sense, the prohibition on titles also pointed to a durable American social ideal. This is the ideal of equality; it is what David Ramsey, the eighteenth-century historian of the American Revolution, called the “life and soul” of republicanism. The particular conception of equality denied a place in American life for hereditary distinctions of caste—slavery being the most glaring exception. At the same time, however, it also allowed free play for the “diversity in the faculties of men,” the protection of which, as Madison insisted in The Federalist No. 10, was “the first object of government.” The republican system established by the Founders, in other words, envisaged a society in which distinctions flowed from the unequal uses that its members made of equal opportunities: a society led by a natural aristocracy based on talent, virtue, and accomplishment, not by an hereditary aristocracy based on birth. “Capacity, Spirit and Zeal in the Cause,” as John Adams said, would “supply the Place of Fortune, Family, and every other Consideration, which used to have Weight with Mankind.” Or as the Jeffersonian St. George Tucker put it in 1803: “A Franklin, or a Washington, need not the pageantry of honours, the glare of titles, nor the pre-eminence of station to distinguish them….Equality of rights…precludes not that distinction which superiority of virtue introduces among the citizens of a republic.”
Similarly, the Framers intended the Emoluments Clause to protect the republican character of American political institutions. “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.” The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton). The delegates at the Constitutional Convention specifically designed the clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the period of the Confederation. Louis XVI had the custom of presenting expensive gifts to departing ministers who had signed treaties with France, including American diplomats. In 1780, the King gave Arthur Lee a portrait of the King set in diamonds above a gold snuff box; and in 1785, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar miniature portrait, also set in diamonds. Likewise, the King of Spain presented John Jay (during negotiations with Spain) with the gift of a horse. All these gifts were reported to Congress, which in each case accorded permission to the recipients to accept them. Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures might unduly influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before one could accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from…[a] foreign State.”
Like several other provisions of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause also embodies the memory of the epochal constitutional struggles in seventeenth-century Britain between the forces of Parliament and the Stuart dynasty. St. George Tucker’s explanation of the clause noted that “in the reign of Charles the [S]econd of England, that prince, and almost all his officers of state were either actual pensioners of the court of France, or supposed to be under its influence, directly, or indirectly, from that cause. The reign of that monarch has been, accordingly, proverbially disgraceful to his memory.” As these remarks imply, the clause was directed not merely at American diplomats serving abroad, but more generally at officials throughout the federal government.
The Emoluments Clause has apparently never been litigated, but it has been interpreted and enforced through a long series of opinions of the Attorneys General and by less-frequent opinions of the Comptrollers General. Congress has also exercised its power of “Consent” under the clause by enacting the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which authorizes federal employees to accept foreign governmental benefits of various kinds in specific circumstances.
written by Robert J. Delahunty
Associate Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas School of Law