Posted on 12/22/2017 7:56:56 AM PST by Kaslin
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit alleging President Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause because his hotels and golf courses continue to do business with foreign governments while he’s serving in office.
U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels said the lawsuit was flawed from the start because the plaintiffs, led by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, lacked standing.
Daniels, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, also said the matter should be taken before Congress, not the courts.
“As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” he wrote in his ruling. “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”
The group’s suit, filed three days after Trump’s inauguration, alleged that the president had violated a little-known, never-tested provision of the Constitution known as the foreign emoluments clause. Written to prevent early America’s diplomats and officials from being swayed by gifts from wealthier nations, the provision bars officeholders from accepting a “present [or] emolument from any King, Prince or foreign state.”CREW charged that Trump was violating the emoluments provision because his company continued to do business and seek benefits from foreign governments after he became president, including by leasing space to foreign entities in Trump Tower and renting ballrooms for embassy functions at the Trump hotel in Washington.
The lawsuit also alleged that Trump probably had violated another constitutional provision, the domestic emoluments clause, which bars presidents from taking payments other than their salary from individual states. Several state government officials have stayed at Trump’s Washington hotel or eaten at its BLT Prime steakhouse since Trump’s election. (WaPo)
CREW vowed to appeal the verdict, issuing a statement saying, “while today’s ruling is a setback, we will not walk away from this serious and ongoing constitutional violation. The Constitution is explicit on these issues, and the president is clearly in violation.”
Sanity rules.
“The group’s suit, filed three days after Trump’s inauguration, alleged that the president had violated a little-known, never-tested provision of the Constitution known as the foreign emoluments clause”
That’s BS. The law has been tested at least 3 times. All the way back to Jefferson selling tobacco to the Brits. In these cases, the benefits that accrued to the sitting president patently emanated from the delivery of the underlying goods, not the promise of some favor. Jefferson grew tobacco, sold tobacco, and was paid money for the tobacco. End of story. Trump has a hotel, he rents the hotel rooms, the foreigners pay for the hotel rooms. End of story.
We notice, of course, that selling 1/5th of US uranium assets to the Russians in exchange for CF contributions does not seem to enter the consideration.
Oh, and by the way, #winning!
You said it.
Nice little “winning” stocking stuffer.
Awesome week!
If you have built anything of value — like a business worth billions of dollars — the MSM-Democrats don't want you in Congress, or in the White House.
The exact opposite of what the Founders intended, but that's par for the course. For both parties, I guess.
If this were upheld no businessman could ever hold office.
The only thing i can imagine is if, for example, the brits entered into a contract for all their diplomats to stay a Trump hotel at a rate far above what it normally charges. But that sounds more like corruption clinton stuff than emoluments violation.
Sanity Rules today.
It’s not reasonable to expect a long standing corporation to stop doing business, because it’s founder ran for President. And I trust Trump.
But I foresee a scenario where Democrats and RINO’s in the future abuse this... setting up shell corporations and charities (ahem Clinton) to accept payments in return for political favors.
Not sure how to provide proper oversight. I do think it’s a congressional job to do, and that there should be oversight of Charities, Corporations, stocks, options etc that are linked to high ranking political officers and congressmen.
As I recall, only Landowners were able to Vote because they had something to lose with an overzealous controlling Government.
Now we have people Voting who do so to Elect people who use the force of Government to take Property and Wealth from their fellow Citizens and give it to them.
Maxine waters will now lose her mind......................oh, wait....................
Agree. There *could* be the appearance of such a thing because if four Brit (or any other) diplomats stay at Hotel Trump maybe they rent two extra rooms for security so it looks like they are being gouged by +50%. But it ain’t so.
Or, if the rooms were “comped” in exchange for some imaginary quid-pro-quo arrangement. Personally, I don’t think DJT does big favors for a few grand in $500 a night hotel rooms, but maybe I misunderstand the scale he operates on.
“As I recall, only Landowners were able to Vote because they had something to lose with an overzealous controlling Government.”
The question of who can vote eventually settled around the notion of “taxation” without representation. Any one who has to pay a tax, has taxes levied upon them, pay sales and property taxes, or pay taxes indirectly through services or good they purchase should have a vote for or against those who spend the money those taxes have raised. Since every one pays taxes of one sort or another, then everyone has the right to vote, Period!
Trump spends 200 million of his own money...takes a huge step down in lifestyle, just to “make a killing off being President, selling hotel rooms to heads of state. These people are off the chart lunatics....never seen anything like it.
She’ll lose her wig.
POTUS Trump will be one of the few Presidents who will leave Office poorer than when he arrived.
Agree or disagree with his Policies, he sacrificed a Life that any of us would envy to do what he could to Make America Great Again.
No controlling authority.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.