A Quote by Norman L. Eisen

People are studying whether there's a cause of action that competitors, for example, would have if they're harmed by these foreign government payments. — © Norman L. Eisen
People are studying whether there's a cause of action that competitors, for example, would have if they're harmed by these foreign government payments.
"The Constitution" has something called The Emoluments Clause. That's just a fancy, 18th century word for no foreign government payments. And Donald Trump is collecting foreign government payments and other benefits throughout his business.It is a direct violation of "The Constitution" and unless he divests, not just operations, he must divest from all business interests or he will be in violation of "The Constitution" from day one.
The United States is looking at a way to launch peace with a disarmed Iraq. And so we are studying the declaration that Iraq submitted. Other members of the security council are studying the declaration, as is Unmovic and IAEA, and I would not make a judgment as to whether or not the declaration will be found deficient and whether or not that might lead to a material breach and whether or not, if it did, that would lead to action on the part of the United Nations.
If [Donald Trump] doesn't make sure that all the foreign government payments - and this includes banks and other corporations owned by foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds, that all of that money is not out of the Trump organization by Friday [20 Jan.2017], when he takes the oath, he will be in violation of "The Constitution."
I think that people who believe in limited government would benefit greatly by studying the logic in government itself and the role of power as a corruptive mechanism in leading finally to unlimited government.
The cause of the South was the cause of constitutional government, the cause of government regulated by law, and the cause of honesty and fidelity in public servants. No nobler cause did man ever fight for!
It would be a very odd chancellor of any UK government that insisted on a course of action that cost their own businesses hundreds of millions of pounds, that blew a massive hole in their balance of payments and, because assets and liabilities go hand in hand, would potentially leave the rest of the UK shouldering the entirety of UK debt.
Foreign policy is now a huge field. It isn't just people who are studying political science. There are so many aspects to it in terms of understanding hard science for people who are studying climate change, or people who are interested in health policy or food security, or people who care about education.
Companies face a handful of different risks, whether it is competitors or different market environments. But I think that people focus way too much on competitors and not enough on their own execution.
It has become fashionable to rail against government intervention in the economy, and the FHA is a favorite example by those trying to show the government's overreach. In reality, the FHA shows how government action during the Great Recession forestalled a much worse economic fate.
The founders knew that foreign governments would try to meddle in our elections, meddle in our politics. And they did not want any foreign government money coming to anyone holding a position of trust with our government.
Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action.
It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.
A lost of people recognize me and maybe will ask for an autograph, but it's nothing like if Elvis would've done something like that, 'cause he's so popular, or maybe The Beatles 'cause they stirred up a lot of action.
You are, I am sure, aware that genuine popular support in the United States is required to carry out any Government policy, foreign or domestic. The American people make up their own minds and no governmental action can change it.
Health care's a great example. We spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid helping people in countries where the money never gets to see the bottom tier, because the bad, corrupt politicians in the government that they have there end up taking what we give them.
Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!