# 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:** 3
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/41 "2017-06-12T17:53:29Z")
> [@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. What do you base this conclusion on? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/42 "2017-06-12T19:49:36Z")
If he owns these hotels — and I would imagine his connections to be rather tenuous, since he was probably never a particularly hands-on grande hotelier, checking the kitchens, turning up the bedclothes, flicking the switches on and off, and generally being a regular little fusspot — wouldn’t it turn on whether he in any way **solicited** these folk to stay at his properties ? If they did so to ingratiate themselves with the new president, as you or I might slip a couple of million into the Clinton Foundation as a goodwill gesture, it’s difficult to see how he could discourage that, even for his delicate sense of propriety — and it might be illegal for him not to maximize profits for his shareholders by refusing trade. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/43 "2017-06-12T20:11:49Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > If he owns these hotels — and I would imagine his connections to be rather tenuous, since he was probably never a particularly hands-on grande hotelier, checking the kitchens, turning up the bedclothes, flicking the switches on and off, and generally being a regular little fusspot — wouldn’t it turn on whether he in any way **solicited** these folk to stay at his properties ? > If they did so to ingratiate themselves with the new president, as you or I might slip a couple of million into the Clinton Foundation as a goodwill gesture, it’s difficult to see how he could discourage that, even for his delicate sense of propriety — and it might be illegal for him not to maximize profits for his shareholders by refusing trade. It’s almost like it’s a bad idea for him to maintain ownership of these properties while simultaneously leading the United States. It’s almost like the ethics advice he received at the start of his campaign would have been worth following. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/44 "2017-06-12T20:17:19Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > If he owns these hotels — and I would imagine his connections to be rather tenuous, since he was probably never a particularly hands-on grande hotelier, checking the kitchens, turning up the bedclothes, flicking the switches on and off, and generally being a regular little fusspot — wouldn’t it turn on whether he in any way **solicited** these folk to stay at his properties ? He does have ownership interest in them. Whether he takes an active management role is not relevant to the question of emoluments. His potential solicitation for others to stay at the hotels is also not relevant. The emoluments clause captures a very wide variety of activities. > [@](#): > > If they did so to ingratiate themselves with the new president, as you or I might slip a couple of million into the Clinton Foundation as a goodwill gesture, it’s difficult to see how he could discourage that, even for his delicate sense of propriety — and it might be illegal for him not to maximize profits for his shareholders by refusing trade. The Clinton Foundation is a non sequitur. It is not illegal to not maximize profits. Basically, everything you’ve written here is not accurate. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/45 "2017-06-12T20:39:21Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > 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. Well the book hypothetical requires us to accept a Australian local library purchase as a “foreign government” purchase. And I was under the impression that Obama, while president, mostly bought T-bonds and put some money in mutual funds. Definitely a few steps away from the closeness of Trump’s hotel and property business. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/46 "2017-06-12T20:50:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well the book hypothetical requires us to accept a Australian local library purchase as a “foreign government” purchase. Why isn’t it? And talk about missing the point: if the “local library” aspect is truly the issue, imagine that the National Library of Australia bought the books. Now what? > [@](#): > > And I was under the impression that Obama, while president, mostly bought T-bonds and put some money in mutual funds. Definitely a few steps away from the closeness of Trump’s hotel and property business. Which the Clause regulates how, exactly? How many steps and how much closeness exactly does it permit? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/47 "2017-06-12T21:22:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why isn’t it? > > And talk about missing the point: if the “local library” aspect is truly the issue, imagine that the National Library of Australia bought the books. > > Now what? I guess I would have to rely on the Supremes to not be morons and recognize that a library would buy books every year and if there was nothing remarkable about buying a couple of Obama books then its unlikely to be a bribe of some sort. I would similarly expect if the number of foreign kings staying at Trump hotels wasn’t unusually higher after his election for them to dismiss this case. > [@](#): > > Which the Clause regulates how, exactly? How many steps and how much closeness exactly does it permit? That’s a concept for the court to decide but not yours to dismiss. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/48 "2017-06-12T21:39:22Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I guess I would have to rely on the Supremes to not be morons and recognize that a library would buy books every year and if there was nothing remarkable about buying a couple of Obama books then its unlikely to be a bribe of some sort. I would similarly expect if the number of foreign kings staying at Trump hotels wasn’t unusually higher after his election for them to dismiss this case. You expect the Supreme Court to hear witnesses, then? Hey, if there’s an objection which justice gets to rule on it? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/49 "2017-06-12T21:47:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You expect the Supreme Court to hear witnesses, then? > > Hey, if there’s an objection which justice gets to rule on it? I don’t see where I mentioned witnesses before the Supreme Court. I would have expected all these issues to be raised and argued before it gets there and most of the factual information to be readily available to the Supremes. Is that some crazy assumption? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/50 "2017-06-12T22:01:06Z")
On reflection though, I guess this case would likely go straight to the SC since it’s being raised by state AGs. But I still don’t see the need for witnesses. It is simple accounting book evidence, istm. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/51 "2017-06-12T22:12:11Z")
So far as I can tell, if the Government or a portion thereof has the power to do some thing individually, then it also has the power to do that thing in a blanket way. See, for instance, the Presidential pardon power, which Carter used to pardon all draft-dodgers, and which Ford used to pardon all of Nixon’s unspecified crimes. Likewise, if Congress were to pass a law saying “The President is hereby authorized to accept any and all emoluments”, I believe that would pass Constitutional muster. The question is then whether the exception to the Conflict of Interest law constitutes such an authorization. I would contend that it does not: It frees the President only from the constraints of that particular law, and while I don’t know the precise differences, that law must in some way be different from the restrictions implied by the Emoluments Clause, or the law would never have been necessary. ---
**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 13, 2017, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/52 "2017-06-13T03:49:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you base this conclusion on? Damnfoolishness? But also, wouldn’t a blanket allowance make the provision a nullity? If you have a constitutional provision that says, “No person, shall, without consent of Congress, do X”, and then it’s ok for Congress to pass a law that says, "Everybody will be allowed to do X all the time’, then you have to wonder what the point of a constitutional prohibition of X is. That being said, I’m not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know? Maybe it is that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/53 "2017-06-13T03:56:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Damnfoolishness? But also, wouldn’t a blanket allowance make the provision a nullity? If you have a constitutional provision that says, “No person, shall, without consent of Congress, do X”, and then it’s ok for Congress to pass a law that says, "Everybody will be allowed to do X all the time’, then you have to wonder what the point of a constitutional prohibition of X is. The point is to express the general distaste for X, while giving the Congress the discretion of allowing or disallowing X, whether case by case or in toto, however it decides? I am sure that there is a presumption that the Congress will share the distaste enough that will not just allow X for everyone, but the consent is the consent. ---
**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 13, 2017, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/54 "2017-06-13T04:27:58Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The point is to express the general distaste for X, while giving the Congress the discretion of allowing or disallowing X, whether case by case or in toto, however it decides? I am sure that there is a presumption that the Congress will share the distaste enough that will not just allow X for everyone, but the consent is the consent. Again, just looking historically, I don’t think it’s a matter of “general distaste”. Just speaking historically about the clause and the congressional exception, it seems to have been a compromise for the sake of diplomacy. The Articles of Confederation said “Nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State” This caused problems historically, especially with France, because King Louis had a tendency to give gifts to foreign ambassadors, which led to a crisis for American ambassadors; either accept the gifts, and risk violating the law, or refuse them, and risk offending Louis. Like I said, I’m not constitutional lawyer, but these people are, and they (before the election) wrote an article for Brookings about the clause and why Trump may be in violation, that makes sense. > **[gs\_121616\_emoluments-clause1.pdf](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf)** > > 510.86 KB ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/55 "2017-06-13T05:19:46Z")
What if a foreign party is booking more room than they need for the purpose of adding money to the Trump industries coffers? Booking an entire floor rather than just the 10 rooms they needed for instance? Near impossible to prove of course, but would that run afoul of the emoluments clause? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/56 "2017-06-13T10:23:25Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Damnfoolishness? But also, wouldn’t a blanket allowance make the provision a nullity? If you have a constitutional provision that says, “No person, shall, without consent of Congress, do X”, and then it’s ok for Congress to pass a law that says, "Everybody will be allowed to do X all the time’, then you have to wonder what the point of a constitutional prohibition of X is. > > That being said, I’m not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know? Maybe it is that simple. It is. Congress can always un-allow what it has allowed. But, yes – if Congress is given the power, then they can use it across the board, or in specific cases, as they please. The point of the prohibition is to rest the decision in Congress’ hands. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/57 "2017-06-13T11:20:33Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > NPR this morning said that various hotels and convention centers in Maryland and DC may have standing as they’re losing business because events are booking in Trump properties to curry favor. So events are choosing Trump’s hotels of their own free will? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/58 "2017-06-13T12:12:22Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > So events are choosing Trump’s hotels of their own free will? No, I believe the NPR show said they had all bee turned into zombie vampires. That’s part of the lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/59 "2017-06-13T15:33:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You expect the Supreme Court to hear witnesses, then? > > Hey, if there’s an objection which justice gets to rule on it? Is this purely a question of law? Are there no questions of fact involved whatsoever? What happens if the SC decides that the case rests on question of fact that hasn’t been addressed in the arguments? IMU, since this is basically new case law, the Court can set whatever sort of tests it finds reasonable to determine if something counts as an emolument, right? What if it rules that the President is required to surrender to the Treasury any and all income derived from a specific attempt to curry favor with the president? Who would decide whether the Embassy of Kuwait switching its booking from the Four Seasons to Trump was an attempt to curry favor and how would they do so? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770/60 "2017-06-13T16:32:22Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Is this purely a question of law? Are there no questions of fact involved whatsoever? > > What happens if the SC decides that the case rests on question of fact that hasn’t been addressed in the arguments? IMU, since this is basically new case law, the Court can set whatever sort of tests it finds reasonable to determine if something counts as an emolument, right? What if it rules that the President is required to surrender to the Treasury any and all income derived from a specific attempt to curry favor with the president? Who would decide whether the Embassy of Kuwait switching its booking from the Four Seasons to Trump was an attempt to curry favor and how would they do so? I have no idea how the Clause could be construed so specifically. And I’m reasonably confident the Court won’t, either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dc-maryland-sue-trump-over-alleged-constitutional-violations/788770.md?page=4)