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."
Plus he sounds like a ####.
I meant to say “Nice try by Painter...”
This man making the lawsuit “has standing”? I think not.
The other thing is that this gaggle of legal peanut-brains does not have standing to even bring this suit. Because, they cannot show they have or are likely to suffer harm. Their laughable argument is that as a self-proclaimed organization dedicated to educating the public and the media about legal issues that they are having to spend time educating the public and media about legal issues. This would be like a plumber arguing he is suffering financial damage when people hire him to be a plumber because he has to spend time being a plumber. It’s completely idiotic, and if they think they are going to get by Trump’s NYC-grade legal defense they got another thing coming. But it is quite illustrative of how myopic they are thinking how smart they are.
Dr painter should be sued for judicial malpractice. This nitwit lunatic should repay any salary that U of M gave him. Now he has had his 1 second of fame. What a clueless, misreading poltroon.
I didn’t think a sitting POTUS could be sued. Especially by the likes of a shlt-eating rodent.
Next: Gofundme.
Maryland? Mississippi? Michigan? Missouri? Montana? Minnesota? Memphis? Miami? Maine?
Friend of Jill?
“CREW = David Brock”
Paid by Soros.
“Topics”, states Minnesota.
Also, in 4th paragraph.
;-)
According to the law’s definitions, Title 18 Section 208 does not apply to the President or the Vice President.
Waste of time or an opportunity to match Richard Painter and then sue the Clintons.
Legal horsesh*t.
If I was a trial counsel to the Trump team, I would ask for Rule 11 sanctions.
No payment. When you mess with someone such as Mr. Trump, the Ds ask for Rule 11 sanctions as early as their Answer.
It’s time for Rule 11 sanctions.
Evidently he is an idiot that does not understand what emoluments are
Why are most of the news stories now after Trump won have their comments off?
FYI ConLaw Ping
Push hard enough, and they’ll get the 556 Clause...
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.