# DC, Maryland sue Trump over alleged constitutional violations **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 12, 2017, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770 "2017-06-12T13:13:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/21 "2017-06-12T15:21:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then see what **Lord Feldon** cited from the Constitution. > > What do the lawsuits say are violations by Trump of the Emoluments clause that haven’t been approved by Congress in the conflict of interest exemption? > > Regards, > Shodan Except, if the whole thing is a violation of the emoluments clause, Congress can’t exempt Trump from it., because statutory law can’t negate a constitutional provision. Only a constitutional amendment can do that. Is it a violation of the emoluments clause? I don’t know. But if it is, the president’s exemption from conflict of interest law wouldn’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/22 "2017-06-12T15:22:43Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > More recent conservative commentary has pointed out that if mere participation in private business was enough, then President Obama’s book sales would have violated the domestic emoluments clause. > > Certainly, a court could go in any direction with it, of course. From an earlier thread: > [@The Trump Presidency HAS to end with Impeachment... right?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/348): > > Out of curiosity, when you looked at those words during the Obama administration, I am sure you did not think, “My gosh! The public library in Tauranga, New Zealand bought six copies of ‘Dreams of My Father.’ That could be an emoluments issue!” > > But now looking back on it, does that concern you? > > If you’re looking at the text of the Clause, that is. Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/23 "2017-06-12T15:23:54Z")
Sorry. What I meant to say is that, while congress could lift the clause in particular cases, I don’t think they can do so in a blanket way. They’d have to approve each enolument individually. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/24 "2017-06-12T15:29:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Except, if the whole thing is a violation of the emoluments clause, Congress can’t exempt Trump from it., because statutory law can’t negate a constitutional provision. As was already cited, in this case, Congress definitely can, because the Constitution allows it. “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.” ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/25 "2017-06-12T15:37:48Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’d love to hear a discussion of this. On the one hand, it seems very clear to me that the president has violated the emoluments clause. Going against that are three factors: > > 1. I may be predisposed to believe bad things about Trump, and I want to work against that. > 2. I’m not sure that there are any legal remedies, short of impeachment, for constitutional violations like this. > 3. Even if there are, I’m not sure if the Maryland/DC Attorneys General have standing to file such a lawsuit. > > What do the legal minds here think of this case? I think the jurisdictions may have standing. I don’t think what is happening qualifies as emoluments. I don’t think there are any non-impeachment remedies other than the entities forfeiting the amount that is considered emoluments to the US government. Presumably these other hotels have had competition before Trump was elected and the case that they are losing business as a result I would think does not create standing for damages via the emoluments clause. For a violation of the constitution, I do not think a competitor hotel would be the aggrieved party anymore than you or I would be. In this case however, I believe there were various incentives to some DC hotels by DC itself via tax credits, or other co-investments such that the government of DC may be shown to have experienced damages if they can demonstrate that Trump hotels have received more business at their expense as a result of emoluments received. Celebrity status alone I do not think would be sufficient. Emoluments are gifts basically. If Trump hotels received payment for services rendered before he was elected, and payments for services rendered after he was elected at substantially the same rates, that’s not a gift. If the rate was $300/night and then went to 10,000/night, that would be more revealing as a gift. Unless that type of information comes out, I would say the hotel stays did not constitute emoluments. When a military person is found in violation of the emoluments clause via some kind of foreign consulting or some such, the remedy is a withholding of pay up to the amount of the emolument or the amount of the pay due to the person. [(Page 12, Remedies)](http://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/resource_library/emoluments_clause_applications.pdf). I seem to recall that the payments are being donated to the Treasury, so that would seem to moot the issue in the case of remedies. My caveat is that none of this has been tested so this is my take on it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/26 "2017-06-12T15:43:18Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Sorry. What I meant to say is that, while congress could lift the clause in particular cases, I don’t think they can do so in a blanket way. They’d have to approve each enolument individually. Not so. Congress could allow certain gifts in a blanket way and set forth the criteria for such allowance. For example, the [Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7342) which [established policies and procedures](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/foreign-gifts-and-decorations-act/)pertaining to the acceptance, use, and disposition of gifts or decorations from foreign governments. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/27 "2017-06-12T15:43:24Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “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.” But the allegation is that Trump has _already_ accepted emoluments without the consent of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/28 "2017-06-12T16:06:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I didn’t vote for Trump, but if some Republican voted to impeach Trump or to remove him from office without a statutory violation that could be proven, I would like to see that Republican’s ass booted out of Congress faster than possible. > > “Trump sux so bad we need to remove him from office even if he hasn’t broken the law”? Fuck that noise. We are a nation of laws, not men, or at least we should be if we want to survive. There’s no law saying Trump can’t nuke Toronto, but if he did (or tried but the people in the bombers and missile silos refused to carry out his orders), should we impeach and remove him? Well, _yeah._ And I’m sure you’d agree with that. And if you do, then the only question is, _how big_ an abuse of power that broke no laws would it take for impeachment to be the right thing? Like in the old joke, we’ve established the principle, now we’re dickering over the price. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/29 "2017-06-12T16:12:31Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Hell, worse come to worse we get an unclear clause in the constitution better defined AND distract Trump. And maybe get a peek at some certain tax returns. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/30 "2017-06-12T16:28:13Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Sorry. What I meant to say is that, while congress could lift the clause in particular cases, I don’t think they can do so in a blanket way. They’d have to approve each enolument individually. Then wouldn’t the exemption from conflicts of interest be un-Constitutional? It was a blanket exemption. Like **Bricker** says above, would Congress have to have given approval every time Obama sold a book, or got a dividend from some investment? ISTM that the Constitution doesn’t define how Congress has to give approval, any more than it says how or when it has to approve a SCOTUS nominee. Why couldn’t Congress just pass laws saying “put it all in a blind trust and it will be OK”? When the DC and Maryland AGs have evidence that Trump is taking cash under the table (or selling pardons for campaign contributions, or firing people from the White House travel office to channel business to your friends) we can worry about it then. I did some Googling but I can’t tell - did Obama get permission from Congress before he accepted the Nobel Prize? That’s worth a considerable sum, although I believe Obama donated it to charity. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/31 "2017-06-12T16:34:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I did some Googling but I can’t tell - did Obama get permission from Congress before he accepted the Nobel Prize? That’s worth a considerable sum, although I believe Obama donated it to charity. According to the DOJ as cited [in this article](https://bol.bna.com/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-emoluments-clause/), the Nobel Prize did not violate the emoluments clause because the prize is awarded by the Nobel Committee which is not a king, prince or foreign state. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/32 "2017-06-12T16:34:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I did some Googling but I can’t tell - did Obama get permission from Congress before he accepted the Nobel Prize? That’s worth a considerable sum, although I believe Obama donated it to charity. It was considered by the [Office of Legal Counsel](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2009/12/31/emoluments-nobel-peace_0.pdf)for sure. In summary: > [@](#): > > As we previously explained in our oral advice and now explain in greater detail, because the Nobel Committee that awards the Peace Prize is not a “King, Prince, or foreign State,” the Emoluments Clause does not apply. > > … there is substantial and consistent historical practice of the political branches that is directly relevant. The President would be far from the first government official holding an “Office of Profit or Trust” to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Rather, since 1906, there have been at least six federal officers who have accepted the Prize while serving in their elected or appointed offices. The Peace Prize has been received by two other sitting Presidents—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—by a sitting Vice President, Secretary of State, and Senator, and by a retired General of the Army,2 with the most recent of these acceptances having occurred in 1973. Throughout this history, we have found no indication that either the Executive or the Legislative Branch thought congressional approval was necessary. Much more at the link. eta: ninja’d while copying/pasting! ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/33 "2017-06-12T16:37:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … > > **Emoluments are gifts basically.** If Trump hotels received payment for services rendered before he was elected, and payments for services rendered after he was elected at substantially the same rates, that’s not a gift. If the rate was $300/night and then went to 10,000/night, that would be more revealing as a gift. Unless that type of information comes out, I would say the hotel stays did not constitute emoluments. > … **bolding** is mine. I would disagree. Courts generally [try to give](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual) distinct meaning to each word. Since the clause specifies “…present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever…” I would assume that present has a different meaning than emolument which has a different meaning than office… etc… IMHO, the term “present” would mean gift - something given without expectation of receiving anything in return. The term “emolument” would seem to have the distinct meaning of salary, wage, honorarium, or compensation for work performed. If “emolument” included the idea of a gift received without expectation of receiving anything in return then the term “present” would be a surplusage. The terms office and title do not seem to be at issue at the present. So far I have not heard any allegation that Trump has personally received outright gifts that were not permitted by Congress. Perhaps there have been some ceremonial gifts exchanged in the course of diplomacy, but so far I have not seen an allegation that any such gift was not permitted or handed over to a US government agency in accordance with tradition for how such matters have been handled. There does not seen to be an allegation of Trump receiving a salary, wage, or honorarium. So the real question is down to emoluments, and whether such term includes ordinary profits from business, and whether such are the sort of compensation intended to be prohibited by this clause. If emoluments are to be understood as including any profits from business transaction then it seems likely that the last several presidents would have been in violation in some small way. In addition to the book sale hypothetical **Bricker** raised above, Obama did own stock in a variety of companies according to his financial disclosures. If those companies had any sales to a foreign government then Obama as a part-owner shareholder directly benefited in some small way. But is that important? Hardly. It was roundly ignored. Which gives rise the the reasonable question, might a connection be so tenuous and distant, or a profit be so minor, that the emoluments clause should not be triggered? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/34 "2017-06-12T16:44:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > There’s no law saying Trump can’t nuke Toronto, but if he did (or tried but the people in the bombers and missile silos refused to carry out his orders), should we impeach and remove him? > > Well, _yeah._ And I’m sure you’d agree with that. > > And if you do, then the only question is, _how big_ an abuse of power that broke no laws would it take for impeachment to be the right thing? > > Like in the old joke, we’ve established the principle, now we’re dickering over the price. Twenty bucks, same as in town. You make a fair point. There could certainly be an abuse that didn’t break any laws but deserved impeachment anyway. I don’t know if I could define it, except it would have to be enough to convince non-partisans as well as reasonable partisans, if such exist. The case the last time we impeached a President wasn’t enough, apparently, but that probably doesn’t make it any clearer. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/35 "2017-06-12T16:53:53Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > According to the DOJ as cited [in this article](https://bol.bna.com/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-emoluments-clause/), the Nobel Prize did not violate the emoluments clause because the prize is awarded by the Nobel Committee which is not a king, prince or foreign state. Thanks to you (and **Bone** ) for the cite. I didn’t see where Trump was getting anything from a foreign state in the lawsuits. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/36 "2017-06-12T16:59:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Thanks to you (and **Bone** ) for the cite. I didn’t see where Trump was getting anything from a foreign state in the lawsuits. > > Regards, > Shodan The broad allegation is that foreign governments might be booking hotel rooms and/or events space in one or more hotels owned, at least in part, by Trump. So if I, as an employee of a foreign government, travel to a conference in Washington and stay in a Trump owned hotel that might be an emoluments clause violation for Trump if my hotel stay is paid for by my employer. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/37 "2017-06-12T17:00:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Thanks to you (and **Bone** ) for the cite. I didn’t see where Trump was getting anything from a foreign state in the lawsuits. From the WaPo article cited in the OP: > [@](#): > > After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the [Trump hotel near the White House], switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/38 "2017-06-12T17:00:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Thanks to you (and **Bone** ) for the cite. I didn’t see where Trump was getting anything from a foreign state in the lawsuits. I believe the state bank of China is a tenant in one of the buildings owned by one of Trump’s enterprises. That and foreign dignitaries choosing to pay for stays at Trump owned hotels. That would be getting something from a foreign state. ETA: Dammit! ninja’d again! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/39 "2017-06-12T17:04:40Z")
Just to be difficult, I will mention that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is appointed by the Norwegian government. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/40 "2017-06-12T17:15:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Just to be difficult, I will mention that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is appointed by the Norwegian government. True. I suspect this decision would have received more scrutiny if there was any evidence of Norway receiving favorable treatment from President Obama. (Though the emoluments clause applies even if there wasn’t any quid pro quo.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770.md?page=3)