Posted on 01/27/2017 7:38:39 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
Lately a little-known clause in the Constitution has been making big headlines. It's called the emoluments clause, and it's just 49 words total.
The clause reads in full: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any Present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The ethics group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) claims President Donald Trump is in violation of that clause, and as a result, they've filed a lawsuit.
"Our organization is suing the president in his official capacity to ask a judge to require the president to stop taking payments from foreign governments and companies controlled by foreign governments in violation of the Constitution," explained CREW Vice Chair Richard Painter, a current University of Minnesota law professor and the former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.
The lawsuit claims, "These violations of the foreign emoluments clause pose a grave threat to the United States and its citizens."
"The founders of our country envisioned this threat," Painter said. "What is the point of having a tea party and throwing King George's tea in the Boston Harbor and having a revolution, and then electing a president who's going to be buying and selling tea with King George?" He added, "We worry a lot about jobs in this country and jobs going out of the country. How can we depend upon the president to protect the interests of American workers in trade negotiations, if the president is receiving money from foreign governments while the negotiations are going on?"
But Trump did explain why he and his lawyers do not believe he's in violation of the Constitution at a Jan. 11 press conference.
"No one would've thought when the Constitution was written that paying your hotel bill was an emolument," a lawyer explained.
Painter believes the president and his team are off-base. "If he does not divest himself of ownership in his businesses, then he still has the conflicts of interest, including the foreign government payments that will be to his benefit regardless of who manages the businesses," he said.
Painter also reiterated that he served under George W. Bush, a Republican, and added, "This is not a partisan issue. This is about the United States and the American people."
This may simply be an academic exercise in semantics. Most such disagreements have no ‘correct’ answer, but allow the
‘plaintiff’ to soak up valuable court time (and money) by complaining for the sake of public opposition.
Correct me if I’m way off.
Dead on, as usual, lee.
This thing is not going anywhere. The dimoKKKRATS are grasping at straws and are probably trying to fund raise off this effort.
Always remember, for every argument a lawyer makes, there’s always another lawyer ready to argue the opposite.
There’s an old story about a town with only one lawyer. He was starving until another lawyer moved into town.
CREW = David Brock
He’s looking for 15 minutes and a nuisance payment.
Shameful.
“probably trying to fund raise off this effort.”
I’m stunned!
“for every argument a lawyer makes, there’s always another lawyer ready to argue the opposite.”
Yes, but there is always a client, too. What lawyers do generally reflects what people are trying to do.
Not sure U of M wants this attention...
A private business has nothing to do with conflict of interest.
All Trump Organization foreign profits are actually being donated to the US Treasury.
Dr. Painter is misreading the emolument clause. Trump is not profiting from being President and he has relinquished his official salary.
Try again.
Heaven forbid if someone pays a hotel bill; but look the other way when Hillary Clinton accepts millions and millions of dollars from foreign leaders into her Clinton foundation which is a money laundering scheme and is mostly a slush fund for the Clinton family.
Don’t know about that.
They’re not exactly a bastion of conservatism.
This point has been litigated and adjudicated three times now and dismissed each time. In different centuries. It is well-settled law and this is a nuisance lawsuit which is perhaps sanctionable. Long ago and far away, when Geo Washington and a few other presidents grew tobacco and sold it while in office, it was perfectly clear that whatever monies they received from the sale of the tobacco emanated from the delivered tobacco, not bribes from those seeking to buy influence. This is not only established law, it is among the longest established law under the Constitution. For those legal pinheads who don’t give a flying crap about the Constitution except when it suits their needs to be the open, running sores they truly are.
Emoluments must “emanate from the office”.
When Hillary (and especially Bill) Clinton gave speeches where the payment for those speeches suddenly tripled once she attained the SOS office with the clear intention and plan to run for president, those payments “emanated” from the office. There was nothing tangible HRC or BJC gave those “sponsors” other than future access or present consideration. They were payments, in advance, for face time or for favors, most of which were granted, some in astonishingly short time. The Uranium One deal was signed sealed and delivered in blazingly short time.
When a foreign diplomat or government official stays at a Trump hotel, the payment is a payment for a service that “emanates” from the hotel. Not Trumps’ office. Trump has already stated that he would pass on either 100% of the “profits” (which can be calculated 10 different ways) or the gross payments from foreign hotel stays or golf course rounds to the Treasury. Of course, to these partisan legal jackals, they only read “payments received” and as usual with all liberal arguments, cut the sentence short early.
Your last part was in a western by William W. Johnstone. Smoke Jensen, the main character, said if one lawyer were in town he did not make any money. If there were two, both got wealthy. He did not like lawyers. The series was “The Last Mountain Man.” If you have not read them, do so. He also wrote “The First Mountain Man” with Preacher as the main character. The most popular series was called, “Out of the Ashes.” There were others, too. I have most of them on my iPad Kindle.
Nice try by Rosenthal to camouflage himself as a George W. Bush Republican. That dog no longer hunts, because now we know that Bush served the UniParty. And the UniParty must destroy Trump before Trump destroys the UniParty.
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.
