• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Constitution's "emolument clause": Democrats take Trump to court

sear

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
925
Reaction score
122
Location
Adirondack Park, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Daily Beast
Nearly 200 Congressional Democrats announce lawsuit against Trump over foreign payments
ABC News - ‎4 hours ago‎
URL: www.abc.com

Add'l sources:
Hill Democrats sue Trump over foreign business tiesPolitico
Why the Emoluments-Clause Lawsuits MatterBloomberg
Most Referenced:Batch 1 - DocumentCloudDocumentCloud
In Depth:Maryland AG Brian Frosh, the unlikely Grateful Dead fan taking on President TrumpWashington Post
Click to expand...
Divestiture or blind trust are acceptable standards and former common practice for wealthy high ranking members of our executive branch.
VP Richard Cheney did so, and avoided snagging such problems.

President Trump has refused to place his holdings in blind trust, and now there is a law suit.

Do you think this one has more substance than the impeachment of President Clinton?

Why?
 
sear said:
Divestiture or blind trust are acceptable standards and former common practice for wealthy high ranking members of our executive branch.
VP Richard Cheney did so, and avoided snagging such problems.

President Trump has refused to place his holdings in blind trust, and now there is a law suit.

Do you think this one has more substance than the impeachment of President Clinton?

Why?
Click to expand...

Yes, because we are taking about a man who is leveraging the office to generate personal profit some of which from foreign governments.
 
sear said:
Divestiture or blind trust are acceptable standards and former common practice for wealthy high ranking members of our executive branch.
VP Richard Cheney did so, and avoided snagging such problems.

President Trump has refused to place his holdings in blind trust, and now there is a law suit.

Do you think this one has more substance than the impeachment of President Clinton?

Why?
Click to expand...

No, Trump isn't required by law to put his holdings in a blind trust. He hasn't done anything wrong. He has simply ignored custom.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, because we are taking about a man who is leveraging the office to generate personal profit some of which from foreign governments.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of either of those statements?

Unsupported articles in Huffpo do not count as evidence.
 
fmw said:
No, Trump isn't required by law to put his holdings in a blind trust. He hasn't done anything wrong. He has simply ignored custom.
Click to expand...

President Trump ignored custom by defeating the established DC politicians.

Now the established politicians are pissed.

Surprise, suprise
 
jimbo said:
Do you have any evidence of either of those statements? Unsupported articles in Huffpo do not count as evidence.
Click to expand...

Doubling the membership fees at Mar-a-lago. Advertising the secret service as an amenity of Trump Tower. All trademark litigation and applications in China that had been ongoing for 10 years was summarily resolved his favor days after winning the election. Etc. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
"Trump isn't required by law to put his holdings in a blind trust." fw #3
Click to expand...
That's why I called it "acceptable standards and former common practice".
"He hasn't done anything wrong." fw #3
Click to expand...
Then what's the law suit about?

Our president has a lawsuit against him from nearly 200 congressmen; because "he hasn't done anything wrong"?

U.S. presidents are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. There is no exemption clause in the Constitution for the emolument clause for presidents.
"Trump isn't required by law to put his holdings in a blind trust." fw #3
Click to expand...
But he is required by oath and law to uphold the Constitution. He isn't. Thus the lawsuit.
 
Is it equivalent to a gift when foreign officials use Trump's businesses over his competitors? What if they do it because Trump is President?

I don't know. There doesn't appear to be any court precedent. I can see it going either way.
 
PS
"Do you have any evidence of either of those statements?

Unsupported articles in Huffpo do not count as evidence. " J #4
Click to expand...
I'll meet you half way on that.

a) I do NOT have physical custody of any such evidence.

b) I've read enough from diverse sources (I rarely if ever read HufPo, even when I participate in threads that have links to it. I prefer WSJ, NYT, ABC, BBC, etc.

c) I would like to believe our MOC bringing this suit sincerely believe they have a case with sufficient viability to win. If it's just a show trial for their 15 minutes of fame, then shame on each of them!

d) How could it POSSIBLY be otherwise?
Considering Trump's holdings around the world, you're telling me that in no case, over a four year period, will any government official from any of well over 100 nations pay any $money to stay at one of them?

It may be true that blind trust or divestiture is not specifically required by law.

BUT !!

Obeying the Constitution, or for clarity, not DISobeying the Constitution, is not merely required by law, but is an enumerated obligation specifically for U.S. presidents.

The lawsuit indicates a significant fraction of our federal legislature believe Trump is currently in violation; thus the lawsuit.
 
Napoleon said:
Doubling the membership fees at Mar-a-lago. Advertising the secret service as an amenity of Trump Tower. Etc. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Trump has no units for sale in Trump Towers. The persons advertising the added security are brokers selling resales. A Trump company manages the long fully occupied building, but its fees are not dependent on advertising hype.

Mir A Lago, a Trump resort, first raised it membership fees from $100K to $150K last September as the 480 membership approached the 500 member cap. At the time the additional fee rise in Jan was announced. Nothing to do with President Trump's win.

Next?
 
fmw said:
No, Trump isn't required by law to put his holdings in a blind trust. He hasn't done anything wrong. He has simply ignored custom.
Click to expand...

Isn't that for the court to decide?
 
sear said:
That's why I called it "acceptable standards and former common practice".

Then what's the law suit about?

Our president has a lawsuit against him from nearly 200 congressmen; because "he hasn't done anything wrong"?

U.S. presidents are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. There is no exemption clause in the Constitution for the emolument clause for presidents.

But he is required by oath and law to uphold the Constitution. He isn't. Thus the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The presidents apparent (to me) fatal flaw might also be his evil genius. He obviously doesn't care about the appearance of corruption, sexism, or racism. The no tax returns, the not separating himself from his businesses make him look like a modern day Anastacio Somoza of Nicaragua, where his business and his government were seamlessly connected. But this may be part of his con, having the opposition and the media focus on his real or assumed corruption, while he does stuff like allowing coal companies to send their coal poop to streams, challenges the entire world (except Syria) on climate, etc.

But I have a question for those more knowledgeable in DC workings: commentary suggests that the GOP is having trouble advancing its agenda cause of Trump distractions. Why is that so? Why can't they ignore Trump and simply send him bills to sign? The only explanation I can think of is that he is not available to twist republican arms to help get stuff passed. What do others think?
 
jimbo said:
Do you have any evidence of either of those statements?

Unsupported articles in Huffpo do not count as evidence.
Click to expand...

We're in the first season of Reality America, nothing counts as evidence.
 
Nickyjo said:
The presidents apparent (to me) fatal flaw might also be his evil genius. He obviously doesn't care about the appearance of corruption, sexism, or racism. The no tax returns, the not separating himself from his businesses make him look like a modern day Anastacio Somoza of Nicaragua, where his business and his government were seamlessly connected. But this may be part of his con, having the opposition and the media focus on his real or assumed corruption, while he does stuff like allowing coal companies to send their coal poop to streams, challenges the entire world (except Syria) on climate, etc.

But I have a question for those more knowledgeable in DC workings: commentary suggests that the GOP is having trouble advancing its agenda cause of Trump distractions. Why is that so? Why can't they ignore Trump and simply send him bills to sign? The only explanation I can think of is that he is not available to twist republican arms to help get stuff passed. What do others think?
Click to expand...

He's not an evil genious, he's a thug, but we use that term differently now don't we.
 
"Is it equivalent to a gift when foreign officials use Trump's businesses over his competitors?" SB #8
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't split that hair.

One foreign official may stay at a Trump hotel, in the U.S. or any elsewhere. And his associate may stay at a non-Trump hotel across the street.

The Constitution doesn't specify motive.
emolument (î-mòl´ye-ment) noun
Payment for an office or employment; compensation.

[Middle English, from Latin êmolumentum, gain, originally a miller's fee for grinding grain, from êmolere, to grind out : ê-, ex-, ex- + molere, to grind.]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
Simply receiving profit is regarded as violating this Constitutional clause.
"What if they do it because Trump is President?" SB #8
Click to expand...
Motive is irrelevant.
Merely that it happens is the issue.
 
Nilly said:
Because it's the job of the court to judge if someone has broken the law or not...
Click to expand...

I think we are neglecting existing laws here.
 
Nilly said:
Isn't that for the court to decide?
Click to expand...

No, the law doesn't require a blind trust. Since Trump isn't running his company, this suit won't go far (unless it reaches the 9th circuit.)
 
" commentary suggests that the GOP is having trouble advancing its agenda cause of Trump distractions. Why is that so? Why can't they ignore Trump and simply send him bills to sign? " N #13
Click to expand...
I haven't read the text.

But insider leak / reports indicate the Senate Republican "health care" bill is actually just a huge tax cut bill for the wealthy.

Reports indicate, to make this huge, generous tax cut for the wealthy approximately revenue neutral, millions if not tens of millions of citizens across the country will lose some or all of their healthcare coverage.

Too soon to know for sure. Wait and see.

But whatever else we do NOT know, we do know this:

senate Republicans are so ashamed of their healthcare shenanigans that they won't even reveal it to their Democrat colleagues.

Obama at least strived for bi-partisan support, but had to settle for Democrat success.

And while Obamacare / ACA was widely criticized among Republicans in and out of congress, to this point Trump's, McConnell's, & Ryan's intention to "repeal" have been thwarted.
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump
Click to expand...
Simpleton!
 
Collusion fell apart. Obstruction is on fumes.

So next up on the DNC playlist......
 
E #22

That's fine.
But it's self-deluding.

No sensible, informed person would deny the continuing partisan tensions in DC.

BUT !!

It would be foolish to ignore that Trump has broken many precedents.

And it's not only Democrats that have noticed.
"I think it's time for him [Donald Trump ("R"-NY) Republican 2016 presidential candidate] to look like a serious candidate for president." Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY)

"I'm not there yet." Speaker Ryan (R) replying to a question about whether he'll support Trump
Click to expand...
Pretending it's simple partisanship simply makes the pretender look silly.
 
Right-wingers literally don't care about the possibility of a US President using his power to further his own business interests... when it's a Republican doing it, anyway.
 
sear said:
That's why I called it "acceptable standards and former common practice".

U.S. presidents are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. There is no exemption clause in the Constitution for the emolument clause for presidents.

But he is required by oath and law to uphold the Constitution. He isn't. Thus the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet the ranch on this. The emolument's clause has never been litigated with respect it's applicability to the President and some very smart Con Law types have argued that it doesn't apply to the President - as one example structurally it appears in Article 1 which deals with Congress and not the President.

And of course even if it does apply it's an open, and very complex question, as to whether it applies in this specific circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom