Dems sue Trump over emoluments

[ThelmaLou]

This should be interesting. So far no one has tried to get DJT to obey the law.

“Congressional Democrats to file emoluments lawsuit against Trump”

Congressional Democrats to file emoluments lawsuit against Trump

Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress agreed to file a lawsuit Wednesday against President Trump alleging that by retaining interests in a global business empire he has violated constitutional restrictions on taking gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.

The lead senator filing the complaint in federal district court, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said Tuesday that the lawsuit has already drawn more congressional plaintiffs — 196 — than any legal action previously taken against a president. No Republicans had joined in the lawsuit so far, although they will be invited to do so, Blumenthal said.
…
The obscure clause in Article I of the Constitution says: “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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 language is interpreted as prohibiting any officeholder — including the president — from accepting a gift, payment or other benefit from a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

A memo prepared by the Senate plaintiff states that “these benefits include any compensation for services rendered in a private capacity such as when a foreign government throws a party at a hotel owned by a federal official.”

…

[Sunny_Daze]

Any idea if this was modeled after the lawsuits from MD, and DC?

I’ve been wondering why this aspect of things has not been getting more attention.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

We’ve been discussing the MD & DC suits in Great Debates.

As with those, my first question here is about standing. If the court(s) find that the plaintiffs do not have any to bring the lawsuit, the rest of the legal arguments don’t matter.

I look forward to having some of our law-talkin’ types weigh in.

[Robot_Arm]

The obscure clause in Article I of the Constitution says: “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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 language is interpreted as prohibiting any officeholder — including the president — from accepting a gift, payment or other benefit from a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

It’s only 4.500 words long and a printed version fits in a shirt pocket; how many parts of it can really be called “obscure”? It’s right there in Article I, for heaven’s sake.

[Sunny_Daze]

From the Washington Post article,

An advance copy of the legal complaint reviewed by The Washington Post argues that those in Congress have special standing because the Constitution’s “foreign emoluments clause” requires the president to obtain “the consent of Congress” before accepting any gifts.

I believe the MD and DC are both using financial harm as their cause. Trump’s holdings causing other buildings to lose business, for example. This would appear to be a different cause, which is a good thing.

[Aspenglow]

The standing issue appears to be substantially overcome in this lawsuit by the lawmakers, at least according to the Reuters piece on it: Reuters says,

*"Lawmakers rarely sue the president, so there are few federal court decisions the legislators can cite to prove their legal standing to bring Wednesday’s case, said Leah Litman, an assistant professor specializing in constitutional law at the University of California, Irvine.

“But the constitutional provision they’re suing to enforce gives them a role in how it’s carried out, and that gives them a powerful standing argument,” Litman said."*

I owe Bricker a rebuttal on this issue in another thread but got very busy over the past month and shirked my responsibility to do it. I’m very interested to see how this case goes. There isn’t really any case law on the issue because, well, we’ve never really faced such a situation. But if the spirit of the Constitutional intent matters at all, then I think this case has a pretty good chance of success.

[ThelmaLou]

@Sunny_Daze

Any idea if this was modeled after the lawsuits from MD, and DC?

I’ve been wondering why this aspect of things has not been getting more attention.

The article says

…
News of the lawsuit emerged less than 24 hours after attorneys general in the District and Maryland, both Democrats, filed suit alleging that payments to Trump violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses. In another lawsuit filed against Trump by business competitors, the Justice Department recently defended Trump’s actions, arguing that he violated no restrictions by accepting fair-market payments for services…

[Sunny_Daze]

49 states to go

[Iggy]

What remedy that the court has the power to grant do these legislators request?

If they cannot offer up a remedy that the court can provide then the lawsuit fails as well.

<Opens popcorn and get comfy on couch.>
We’re gonna’ be here for a while.

[Sunny_Daze]

Oh, I think this could run up to the Supreme Court a few times.

1. Do they have cause? Y/N
2. Must DJT produce all required records (such as income taxes, business records, etc) Y/N
3. Must DJT testify in open court Y/N

I’m sure he’ll think of a few other ways.

[Evan_Drake]

I think the expectation is that Trump having lost the case will fold like a cheap suit, resign, and surrender himself to the court who will then sentence him to 20 years.
Then the brutal minions of the law fell upon the hapless Toad; loaded him with chains, and dragged him from the Court House, shrieking, praying, protesting; across the market-place, where the playful populace, always as severe upon detected crime as they are sympathetic and helpful when one is merely “wanted,” assailed him with jeers, carrots, and popular catch-words; past hooting school children, their innocent faces lit up with the pleasure they ever derive from the sight of a gentleman in difficulties; across the hollow-sounding drawbridge, below the spiky portcullis, under the frowning archway of the grim old castle, whose ancient towers soared high overhead; past guardrooms full of grinning soldiery off duty, past sentries who coughed in a horrid, sarcastic way, because that is as much as a sentry on his post dare do to show his contempt and abhorrence of crime; up time-worn winding stairs, past men-at-arms in casquet and corselet of steel, darting threatening looks through their vizards; across courtyards, where mastiffs strained at their leash and pawed the air to get at him; past ancient warders, their halberds leant against the wall, dozing over a pasty and a flagon of brown ale; on and on, past the rack-chamber and the thumbscrew-room, past the turning that led to the private scaffold, till they reached the door of the grimmest dungeon that lay in the heart of the innermost keep. There at last they paused, where an ancient gaoler sat fingering a bunch of mighty keys.

“Oddsbodikins!” said the sergeant of police, taking off his helmet and wiping his forehead. “Rouse thee, old loon, and take over from us this vile Toad, a criminal of deepest guilt and matchless artfulness and resource. Watch and ward him with all thy skill; and mark thee well, greybeard, should aught untoward befall, thy old head shall answer for his—and a murrain on both of them !”

The gaoler nodded grimly, laying his withered hand on the shoulder of the miserable Toad. The rusty key creaked in the lock, the great door clanged behind them; and Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England.*

[Johnny_Ace]

@Evan_Drake

I think the expectation is that Trump having lost the case will fold like a cheap suit, resign, and surrender himself to the court who will then sentence him to 20 years.
Then the brutal minions of the law fell upon the hapless Toad; loaded him with chains, and dragged him from the Court House, shrieking, praying, protesting; across the market-place, where the playful populace, always as severe upon detected crime as they are sympathetic and helpful when one is merely “wanted,” assailed him with jeers, carrots, and popular catch-words; past hooting school children, their innocent faces lit up with the pleasure they ever derive from the sight of a gentleman in difficulties; across the hollow-sounding drawbridge, below the spiky portcullis, under the frowning archway of the grim old castle, whose ancient towers soared high overhead; past guardrooms full of grinning soldiery off duty, past sentries who coughed in a horrid, sarcastic way, because that is as much as a sentry on his post dare do to show his contempt and abhorrence of crime; up time-worn winding stairs, past men-at-arms in casquet and corselet of steel, darting threatening looks through their vizards; across courtyards, where mastiffs strained at their leash and pawed the air to get at him; past ancient warders, their halberds leant against the wall, dozing over a pasty and a flagon of brown ale; on and on, past the rack-chamber and the thumbscrew-room, past the turning that led to the private scaffold, till they reached the door of the grimmest dungeon that lay in the heart of the innermost keep. There at last they paused, where an ancient gaoler sat fingering a bunch of mighty keys.

“Oddsbodikins!” said the sergeant of police, taking off his helmet and wiping his forehead. “Rouse thee, old loon, and take over from us this vile Toad, a criminal of deepest guilt and matchless artfulness and resource. Watch and ward him with all thy skill; and mark thee well, greybeard, should aught untoward befall, thy old head shall answer for his—and a murrain on both of them !”

The gaoler nodded grimly, laying his withered hand on the shoulder of the miserable Toad. The rusty key creaked in the lock, the great door clanged behind them; and Toad was a helpless prisoner in the remotest dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all the length and breadth of Merry England.*

Well, you got the Toad part right…

[Sunny_Daze]

@Evan_Drake

I think the expectation is that Trump having lost the case will fold like a cheap suit, resign, and surrender himself to the court who will then sentence him to 20 years.

I think they’d be perfectly happy with the courts forcing DJT to turn over the financial records. If they find evidence enough to justify an impeachment trial based on what they find, they can worry about the rest of this case after Congress is finished.

[Bricker]

@Aspenglow

The standing issue appears to be substantially overcome in this lawsuit by the lawmakers, at least according to the Reuters piece on it: Reuters says,

*"Lawmakers rarely sue the president, so there are few federal court decisions the legislators can cite to prove their legal standing to bring Wednesday’s case, said Leah Litman, an assistant professor specializing in constitutional law at the University of California, Irvine.

“But the constitutional provision they’re suing to enforce gives them a role in how it’s carried out, and that gives them a powerful standing argument,” Litman said."*

I owe Bricker a rebuttal on this issue in another thread but got very busy over the past month and shirked my responsibility to do it. I’m very interested to see how this case goes. There isn’t really any case law on the issue because, well, we’ve never really faced such a situation. But if the spirit of the Constitutional intent matters at all, then I think this case has a pretty good chance of success.

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) found no standing for members of Congress suing to enforce the Constitution:

@case headnotes

Appellees, Members of the 104th Congress, voted “nay” when Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act (Act), which gives the President the authority to cancel certain spending and tax benefit measures after he has signed them into law. The day after the Act went into effect, they filed suit against appellants, Executive Branch officials, challenging the Act’s constitutionality.
.
.
.
Appellees have not been singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to other Members of their respective bodies, but claim that the Act causes a type of institutional injury which damages all Members of Congress equally.
.
.
.
In addition, the conclusion reached here neither deprives Members of Congress of an adequate remedy-since they may repeal the Act or exempt appropriations bills from its reach-nor forecloses the Act from constitutional challenge by someone who suffers judicially cognizable injury resulting from it.

Why did Leah Litman fail to mention the case that is very close on facts but doesn’t help her desired public narrative?

[Crotalus]

@Bricker

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) found no standing for members of Congress suing to enforce the Constitution:

Why did Leah Litman fail to mention the case that is very close on facts but doesn’t help her desired public narrative?

The difference in this case is obvious. The constitution explicitly states that the consent of congress is required when benefits are accepted by the president. Congress isn’t challenging the constitutionality of a law, which was the case in Raines v Byrd.

[Tom_Tildrum]

Politically, the timing of the suit comes across as an admission of defeat on the Russian front.

[Northern_Piper]

I saw it more as “Second Front Now!”

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Tom_Tildrum

Politically, the timing of the suit comes across as an admission of defeat on the Russian front.

Yes. Because this is the very first time we’ve heard about emoluments, and how the president is afoul of them.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Tom_Tildrum

Politically, the timing of the suit comes across as an admission of defeat on the Russian front.

Why? Because another Trump toady refused to answer?

Sorry, this ballgame is only in the first inning, and nobody’s ‘won’ anything.

[Bricker]

@Crotalus

The difference in this case is obvious. The constitution explicitly states that the consent of congress is required when benefits are accepted by the president. Congress isn’t challenging the constitutionality of a law, which was the case in Raines v Byrd.

The consent of Congress as a whole. Art III standing requires particularized injury to individuals.

@Raines v Byrd

To meet the standing requirements of Article III, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis added). For our purposes, the italicized words in this quotation from Allen are the key ones. We have consistently stressed that a plaintiff’s complaint must establish that he has a “personal stake” in the alleged dispute, and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.

Obviously the emphasis was in the original, since the original mentions the italicized words.

@Raines v Byrd

And our standing inquiry has been especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional. .
. . In the light of this overriding and time honored concern about keeping the Judiciary’s power within its proper constitutional sphere, we must put aside the natural urge to proceed directly to the merits of this important dispute and to “settle” it for the sake of convenience and efficiency. Instead, we must carefully inquire as to whether appellees have met their burden of establishing that their claimed injury is personal, particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially cognizable.

And:

In sum, appellees have alleged no injury to themselves as individuals (contra Powell), the institutional injury they allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed (contra Coleman), and their attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form is contrary to historical experience. We attach some importance to the fact that appellees have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suit.

(emphasis added)