Is it also an emolument if, for instance, I pay for the room, and am reimbursed by my employer?
Previous to the Constitution, the states had different monies, different international treaties, etc. They were, effectively, separate nations. As part of forming a union, these nations accepted the restrictions and requirements of any treaty signed by the Federal government, despite having had no part in the making of that treaty. If a foreign state makes an attack on our democracy, and the Executive branch denies the existence of that attack and brings in lawyers to protect all of those in the US who might have had dealings with the foreign state, that would be a very worrying thing.
If a state cannot trust that the Executive branch of the government is interacting with foreign states on the behalf of the union, then that would be a worrying and damaging state of affairs. They are stuck with the choices of the Executive branch, despite having reason to believe that the Executive branch was working for a foreign agent instead of the people of our nation.
Sure. But the remedy is clear: the President can be removed by the people in four years. The President can be removed by half the House and two-thirds of the Senate at any time. Congress can pass laws that forbid the President’s conduct.
And remember that the entire House is replaceable in two years. The requisite two-thirds of the Senate can be replaced in four years, and the remaining third in just two more.
In any event, the answer remains the same: the inchoate lack of trust that a state may have for the Executive does not confer Article III standing.
No, I mean to say that we are ruled by laws whether they are even-handed or not. If the law is wrong, you change the law. You don’t ignore it because you think it isn’t even-handed.
I don’t understand the point of the question. Trump is a man, and he is the President by rule of law. Under the rule of law, it doesn’t matter if he is temperamental and arbitrary. He continues as President until
[ul][li]He fails to be re-elected[/li][li]He completes the two terms in office which the Constitution allows[/li][li]His conduct is such that he is removed from office under the rule of law - i.e. if he is impeached by a majority of the House, and removed from office by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate.[/li]
In order to remove him from office, there has to be proof of some conduct that violates the law or the Constitution, or is a serious enough breach of conduct that rises to the level that Congress is convinced he should be removed.[/ul]The DC and Maryland AGs don’t seem to have produced any evidence that Trump has violated the law, and politically I don’t see any evidence of a legal but serious breach of conduct on Trump’s part.
Agencies of foreign governments are booking rooms in Trump’s hotels. Agencies of a foreign government gave Obama a million dollars near the beginning of his term, without the approval of Congress. Did you consider that grounds to impeach Obama?
I did not. Because it did not constitute, IMO, a serious but legal breach of conduct on Obama’s part. And it was legal. Same here.
Regards,
Shodan
Well so, alternatively, let’s pretend that the President files an executive order which prevents immigration to a particular state, reducing the state’s expected revenue for the year. Are you holding that the damages from this instance also must be addressed by voting or impeachment?
If not, do you have any particular criteria where one sort of damage to a state, by the Executive branch, must go through impeachment and the other must be addressed by the courts?
The states had a Constitutionally designed input via their appointment of Senators by the legislature of those states. So the state legislatures had a voice in Congress. But the states voluntarily gave away their direct line to Congress with passage of the 17th Amendment.
Yes, I do.
The damage must be particularized to an individual entity.
The Fourth Circuit’s travel ban cases, for example, rest on the standing of three individual Plaintiffs—Muhammed Meteab, Doe #1, and Doe #3. The plaintiffs alleged that they, personally, were damaged by the travel ban, and that the ban was unconstitutionally violative of the First Amendment. Specifically:
Doe #, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, Muslim, and
originally from Iran, is married to a woman who resides in Iran and who has a pending visa application on behalf of his wife. The travel ban would prevent the entry of Doe #1’s wife.
That is a cognizable, specific, particularized injury.
In contrast, a general claim that somehow income will be reduced is not. However, the state can show particularized injury by showing it is being treated differently than all other states.
I’m pretty sure that, while oblique, I explicitly referenced the 9th circuit standing argument (and I do note that there is in fact a case that has risen successfully through the 9th circuit, so it seems implausible to argue that a reasonable lawyer would not accept this sort of standing argument). I would also suspect, if I looked back through the history of the US, that I could find instances where states have brought cases against the Federal government, in the Supreme Court, and been found to have standing.
Then the states would have had to show particularized injury.
There are plenty of reasonable lawyers who take the position that the law should change and grow. If your argument is, “Now is the time for a new doctrine of standing to be recognized, and the courts are ready to do it,” then I have no rebuttal, just a confident prediction that you’re wrong in terms of accurately predicting the outcome. Reasonable lawyers have argued plenty of cases that ended against them because they were arguing for a sea change. And, of course, I know sometimes they win, and we get a Miranda, a Mapp, a Loving.
If your argument is that this is not a new argument for standing, but rather one entirely consistent with past precedent, then I’d ask you to identify the cases you mean.
I hate Trump as much as the next guy but I see your trepidation and I’ll raise you some skepticism.
- The emoluments clause of the Constitution was meant to prevent the President and other officers of the government from accepting bribes in return for favour to the disadvatange of the United States. One has to bear in mind that in 1789 the USA was a pretty tenuous proposition to begin with, and the prospect of key people being bribed into betraying it was a legitimate fear.
As Shodan points out, Barack Obama - as well as Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Woodrow Wilson, Charles Dawes, and Henry Kissinger - received a handsome cash award and a shiny medal from a foreign agency while holding office. Nobody sued them, though, because banning the Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t the point of the Emoluments Clause.
The nature of Trump’s corruption, whereby he used his position to conveniently funnel profit into his businesses, is not precisely what the Framers had in mind to stop. It is unethical but not clearly a violation of the Constitution.
-
I think it fairly logical that if this specific sort of behaviour is to be prohibited then there should be a law against it. But, there isn’t, that I am aware of. The convention of Presidents removing themselves from all their business interests is a political one, not a legal requirement.
-
Trump not only doesn’t have to put his assets into a blind trust; he literally COULDN’T have done it. It would be a practical impossibility. That fact was available to any voter who could read and use the Internet for five minutes. The people who voted for him knew, or had the opportunity to know, precisely what they were getting into.
Personally, I think it obvious that looting the American people and foreign governments by using his businesses is not only obviously what he’s doing, but was obviously one of the reasons he wanted to be President. I said as much long before the election, and I find it disgusting. But it’s a political matter, one the voters and/or other politicians are required to remedy.
You seemed to accept the one I gave in post 82, so I will not comment further on this side of things.
I’ll note, firstly, that given your subterfuge on the 4th vs. 9th circuit cases, that I suspect that you are aware of a case to use as an example, that would be widely accepted. So, I’d most like to note that I wish you’d use your knowledge in a useful and educational way, informing people of the laws and widely accepted precedents that are relevant (pro or con) to the arguments that they are making, rather than force non-lawyers to make legal arguments, leading most to think that their argument was wrong, rather than simply that it wasn’t argued like one would argue it in a court.
But to take a best stab, Massachusets v EPA and Texas v United States, seem to be the new and shiny cases in this regard.
Going back through history, Marbury v Madison was explicitly over the question of whether the Supreme Court had the authority to compel the other branches to faithfully execute the laws of the nation. Under-enforcement is a matter that can be taken to court and, by the court, compliance to the judiciary sought. This is further enforced in cases like Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes.
I see in 1867, the successful (from a standing front) case of Mississippi v. Johnson. The state lost, but not on an issue of standing. It argued that the President was not faithfully performing his duties. The court decided that the indicated duties fell under the heading of “discretionary acts” rather than mandatory ones.
New Jersey v Sargent (1926) had the state of New Jersey prosecuting the US Attorney General. Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1922) is as the name implies.
Did any of these presidents keep these gifts for themselves?
I see that Obama donated his nobel prize money.\
I don’t know what the other presidents or officers did with their prizes.
Bricker brings up George washing ton accepting a painting and a sculpture, (I think) from france, but did he accept those and put them on display in his mt vernon home, or sell them and keep[ the proceeds? Or did he put them in the white house of the time, and leave them there for the country?
I ask becuase I do not know. I found articles on obama donating the money quite easily, but I can’t track down what GW did with his gifts.
If a president accepts gifts on behalf of the nation, and does not personally profit from them then I certainly see it as different situation than one in which someone accepts money, and just keeps it for themselves. (though, I admit that I do not know if legally there would be a difference.)
Nope. I have no idea what subterfuge you’re talking about.
I have, and what I’ve said here is correct. My analysis doesn’t foreclose the courts crafting new standards for standing, of course.
These cases rest on statutory standing grounds: 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).
“Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.” Quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. In other words, Congress created an explicit method by which the challenge could be pursued.
You’re confusing standing with mandamus.
Standing is the issue that arises because the federal courts are only given jurisdiction to hear disputes in which there is an actual case or controversy. This has been interpreted to mean that only cases in which both parties have real, particular stakes at issue may be heard. A plaintiff must show particularized harm.
Mandamus is the vehicle by which a court orders an lower court, or another government official, to perform a duty that he is obligated to execute.
Mandamus is the remedy. Standing is the ticket to get into the courtroom.
So was there standing in Marbury v Madison? Of course there was. James Marbury had been commissioned as a Justice of the Peace by President Adams, but the commission was not delivered before Adams’ term ended. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to give the commission to Marbury. Marbury had a clear, particularized, individual harm: he was legally supposed to have a commission as Justice of the Peace, but Madison’s illegal actions were preventing that.
And there was no question of standing. Mississippi alleged that enforcing the Reconstruction Acts damaged Mississippi but not all states, and they gave specific examples of the harm.
Yes. And the court dismissed it, finding no standing on the part of New Jersey.
Yes, and the case was dismissed for lack of standing on the part of Texas.
Then you don’t understand the point of being “ruled by laws and not by men.” You just endorsed arbitrary rule by a man given authority by a “law.” That’s arbitrary authority, or “rule by men.”
As for the rest of your post: It does appear to be the case that statutorily Trump is not expressly forbidden from running a private hotel in D.C. But the potential for abuse of that is such that it is not normal, and that loophole should be closed. If it isn’t closed, that indicates that the Congressional GOP just don’t care. And I expect most of them don’t.
Ummm… what?
No. I’d say this sentence indicates a profound lack of understanding on YOUR part.
The phrase “rule of law,” refers to the general concept that the exercise of political power is constrained by a set of abstract and pre-existing principles. As far back as Aristotle’s writings, the concept that the execution of sovereign power should be subject to a preset limit was a central feature of thought.
In contrast, the phrase “rule of man,” refers to a regime in which the ruler exercises power in whatever manner he chooses, unconstrained by the existence of law. Note that this refers to no law in effect. A situation in which the law exists and allows some actions does not transform the framework into “rule of man.”
More simply:
Rule of man:
THE KING: Josef K., you have displeased me.
JOSEF K.: But Your Majesty, I have done nothing against the law!
THE KING: How unfortunate. Guards! Off with his head!
(thud)
THE KING: Have that carpet cleaned.
Rule of law:
THE KING: Josef K.
JOSEF: Yes, Your Majesty?
THE KING: Errr… (eyes halberd longingly)… This is your lucky day. Get the fuck out of my sight.
The question is this: Is the law there to give us a President, or is the President there to enforce the law?
Trump is exploiting the law to gain status, but he’s not trying to live up to the responsibilities, and he’s been using his position to drop arbitrarily policy directives like a company president. (See, the Travel Ban.) This is not completely unprecedented, but it’s not rule by law, it’s rule by personal authority.
Again: no.
The law grants the president the authority to enact such bans. Congress retains the power to remove that authority, by changing the law. The law does not vanish merely because you don’t agree with the way it’s exercised.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread but it seems best here as regards standing to sue the president over the emoluments clause:
Another resurrection as the case takes another step forward:
I think the interesting part here is it sounds like they can start doing discovery which could be interesting.
Following this thinking, how would the lawsuit view the payments to the hotels that were made be American citizens, American companies, citizens of other countries and companies based outside the U.S.? Sounds like they’d all be fine, correct?