Timeline for Who actually paid for the American State Visit Brooch?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2021 at 16:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Oct 1, 2021 at 16:49 | |||||
| Feb 3, 2021 at 21:52 | vote | accept | Pieter Geerkens | ||
| Jul 19, 2018 at 3:26 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:42 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @PieterGeerkens I think the distinction is as I said above. If the gift appears in the list of official gifts, then it is an official gift, given on behalf the United states by the President of the United States, and subject to the usual questions of official & diplomatic protocol. If not, then it is a personal gift | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:40 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | Ultimately, I think this irritated the author of the book, since it meant the instances we had found did not support his thesis (the acts were unlawful, but not illegal - an important distinction). To be fair, they didn't contradict his thesis either, but it meant a lot of research costs (to him / his University & his publisher) had been 'wasted'! | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:40 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @sempaiscuba: I accept that possibility - but where then is the distinction? If all gifts, 'official' or not, must be paid for from the President's personal resources, and a primary purpose for his salary is to provide a budget for such, how does one distinguish between 'official' and personal gifts when the President is representing the people of the United States abroad? | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:37 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @PieterGeerkens In that case, why did the judges explicitly state that the judgement related to "official Presidential actions"? If your reading had been the intent, surely it would have been simpler just to state " all actions taken while in office"? [This exact point came up in connection with a research project. I had to sit through interminable meetings about this & other cases with an expert in US Constitutional law last year. The point was made that legal protection for the US President (& the VP) only covers their official acts]. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:24 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @JMS: That would only apply if either a majority of the House of Representatives or at least one third of the Senate agreed - to prevent either an impeachment or a conviction. Modern opinion leans towards liability for criminal acts existing after departure from office, provided Statute of Limitations hasn't run out for the alleged offence, so that a Grand Jury true bill could then be issued. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:23 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:12 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 585 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:12 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @sempaiscuba: I believe you have misinterpreted that decision. My reading is that the President has absolute immunity, even after leaving office, for all actions taken while in office; NOT that there is a distinction for actions taken while in office. Your interpretation, I believe, would have required the Justices to speak to some means of making the distinction. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 20:05 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 585 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:58 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 585 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:41 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | Yep. Seems that was listed as an Official Gift. The thing is that official gifts appear on lists of official gifts. Personal ones don't. So, if it's not on the list it must be personal. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:32 | comment | added | user27618 | @sempaiscuba, So because a President is not accountable to U.S. laws when acting in an official capacity, but is sometimes accountable unofficaially.., therefore it is beyond question that two gifts which he selected and purchased with his own money on an official state visit, may be clearly and absolutely distinguished as personal and not personal? I wonder if Gordon Brown's CD set was a offical gift from the American People then. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:21 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:19 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | Actually, it seems the US legal system is explicit in the matter. For example it observes that the President has immunity from prosecution in connection with official Presidential actions (See, for example page 74. It is therefore clear that there can be times when the President's actions are not official Presidential actions. In this case, the official gifts are explicitly listed. The brooch is not on the list. Ergo, it wasn't an official gift. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:17 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 356 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 19:08 | comment | added | user27618 | @sempaiscuba, and of coarse it is irrelevant that the U.S President is a "citizen" because his office conveys responsibilities and expenses which eclipse his citizenship. A citizen is free to keep a gift given from an acquaintance, a President is not. A citizen chooses who and when to purchase gifts and if he fails to live up to the establish etiquette the result is a social stigma. A President does not choose who nor when to purchase gifts and if he fails etiquette wise the results are significantly impactful and reflect on the country. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:58 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | This is almost entirely accurate. However, FWIW there's currently technically a 2-PAC hop required to give money anonymously to US politicians. The first PAC can take anonymous $, but can't give to politicians, the second PAC can give to politicians, and is required to report the first PAC as the giver. Its pretty clearly a legal loophole, but one poltiticans aren't rushing to close, for obvious$ rea$on$. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:50 | comment | added | user27618 | @sempaiscuba, Again, Arguable all gifts given by the president are personal gifts, because he pays for all of them. Also arguable, no gifts given by the President are personal because the mere fact that it is a gift from the President of the United States denotes a gift given by the leader of the United States and thus the American People as he represents the American people in everything he does, especially at an official state visit to one of America's greatest and most important allies. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:41 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1388 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:28 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | One example of a personal gift from a sitting US President that springs to mind (from some recent research I carried out on another project) was Gerald Ford's gift of golf-balls to President Suharto of Indonesia. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:25 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | Yes, that is true of the official gifts, which were listed on the statement from The Palace. But the US President is also a citizen, and as such a personal gift would be given, not from the President, but by that citizen (who also happens to be the President). It is, indeed, nuanced, but this is hardly the first personal gift from a US President. I believe that the distinction between official and personal gifts received by US representatives is actually explicitly recognised in the US Code. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:18 | comment | added | user27618 | @sempaiscuba The United States President is a representative of the American People. He is paid and given access to huge resources to help him better represent the American People. In everything he does in his term in office he represents the American People. He visited Britain representing the US People, He attended the dinner representing the US people, and he exchanged gifts with British leaders, representing US people. Only he paid for his gift and the US people kept the one the British gave him. You might think that's a nuanced argument, but historically it's the norm. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:13 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 312 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 18:10 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | I'm not sure you can argue that the brooch was a gift from the American people. That would have been the official gift (see the link in my comment above). Although I can't find any official, or semi-official, site that explicitly states that it was a personal gift, its glaring absence from the lists of official gifts strongly suggests that it was. Sadly, I don't think the Queen's official 'gift-list' for 2011 is available online. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 17:55 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 473 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 17:44 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 17:39 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 17:31 | history | answered | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |