Had the framers intended that, they either would have merely listed it as another basis for impeachment or not listed it at all (as it is basically implied by high crimes and misdemeanors).

I believe congress could enforce it by law, though I'm not sure they've done that re the president.

What I think they can do is simply claim that any such emoluments do not belong to the president, but belong to the federal government itself. So the federal government could send Donnie a bill.

Not that he'd pay it,....

For one thing, he's hiding his financial records. And even if his immediate earnings from, say, holding the G7 summit at his property were confiscated, there will be future earnings as a result of having the summit there (from the publicity, from the renovations, etc.).

Plus, he'd tie it up in courts for years.

I think impeachment and removal is the only recourse.

But that's very difficult, as we've seen. Among other things, standing (i.e. who actually has the right to sue) is difficult to establish and even if it is, the remedy and ultimate enforcement mechanism aren't clear.

that the court believes violates the emoluments clause (a case is working its way through the courts currently)
but it seems more likely the court would ultimately pass this to Congress to enforce.

for violations of its text by the executive branch is impeachment. This isn’t just emoluments it’s everything.

enforcement power there is against a President. Period. More's the pity, perhaps.

or very rarely, does not mean it is legal.

It means that we now have someone that is willing to break precedent and the law. That does not mean the law is obsolete.