# Dems sue Trump over emoluments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2017, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924 "2017-06-14T05:02:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/21 "2017-06-14T13:37:39Z")
> [@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? Did you see the part where Ms. Litman said that there are “few” cases which have been published that deal with this particular issue of Congressional standing? From your own cited case: > [@U.S. Supreme Court in Raines v. Byrd](#): > > We have never had occasion to rule on the question of legislative standing presented here. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 512-514 (1969), we held that a Member of Congress’ constitutional challenge to his exclusion from the House of Representatives (and his consequent loss of salary) presented an Article III case or controversy. > … > The one case in which we have upheld standing for legislators (albeit state legislators) claiming an institutional injury is Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433 (1939). Appellees, relying heavily on this case, claim that they, like the state legislators in Coleman, “have a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes,” id., at 438, sufficient to establish standing. > … > We therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do not have a sufficient “personal stake” in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing. Your own cite states that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue in the case directly. But given that the Raines case dealt with an act of Congress (whose text stated that Congress and any individual automatically had standing to sue on the ground that any provision violated the Constitution), this case is sufficiently distinguishable from members of Congress who are seeking to sue based on an alleged violation of the Constitution itself without regard to any particular act or statute. Here, any court’s ruling will be heavily fact-dependent on what the Democratic Congressmen have alleged is the personal stakes that establish whether or not they have a sufficiently concrete injury. So, in other words, Ms. Litman’s statement was not incorrect and the standing issue that courts will have to decide is not so clear cut in relation to Raines, precisely because it will be a fact-intensive examination of the concrete injury alleged. Or did you not wish to discuss the distinguishing facts of the case and how any case brought now will turn on the concrete injury alleged and not merely a rote citation of Raines because it doesn’t help your desired public narrative? In other words, why do you consistently try to attack the motives of the person making the argument and not the argument itself? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/22 "2017-06-14T13:41:05Z")
I think that there’s a great deal of confusion here about standing, and, worse, I believe that various law professors interviewed for the question are very willing to opine about what (in their opinion) the law should be when asked what the law is. I’ve complained about this before, but the phenomenon is captured much better by Ken White, who blogs at Popehat: > [@](#): > > The media loves to quote a professor to support a viewpoint. This is intellectually neutral: it can be good or bad, depending on the honesty and qualifications of the professor selected. > > Quoting professors about law is particularly risky, if your aim is an accurate and informative discussion of free speech law. If you call a physics professor and ask them what will happen if you drop your pencil, and why, he or she will say “it will fall, because of gravity.” There is a relatively low chance that the professor will tell you “well, maybe nothing will happen” because he or she harbors the belief that the current gravitic regime is unfair and otherwise problematical. But when you call a professor of law, or political science, or journalism, and ask them a question about whether some controversial speech is protected by the First Amendment, there is an unacceptably high probability that you will get a quote expressing what the professor thinks the law ought to be. Sometimes the professor will flag a statement as an argumentative one, sometimes not. Moreover, some professors . . . . how can one put this delicately? Some law professors’ views on how a court is likely to rule on an issue are untainted by exposure to actual courts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/23 "2017-06-14T13:43:35Z")
> [@ganthet](#): > > In other words, why do you consistently try to attack the motives of the person making the argument and not the argument itself? I had already disposed of the attack on the argument. The attack on the motives was a separate issue. Now, let me ask you something: do you genuinely believe that these litigants will ultimately be found to have standing? ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/24 "2017-06-14T14:40:22Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > 49 states to go 😉 These are two different suits. From the OP: > [@](#): > > Nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress … ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/25 "2017-06-14T14:46:52Z")
I know. Crossed the streams. Long night. ---
**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 14, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/26 "2017-06-14T14:49:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, let me ask you something: do you genuinely believe that these litigants will ultimately be found to have standing? I don’t have a belief on it. Do you believe the case in question is an absolute no-go because the standing issue is 100% resolved? If not, what would be your ballpark guess as to the likelihood of the standing issue being resolved against the plaintiffs here? ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/27 "2017-06-14T14:58:27Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > I know. Crossed the streams. Long night. No kidding! For a change, I didn’t look at the headlines when I first got up this morning, and then in the car, I hear about the shootings in Alexandria. :eek: I swear, you can’t be away from the news for 30 minutes these days. This can’t be good for our mental health. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/28 "2017-06-14T16:25:23Z")
I have no idea what the law is. But in my view of how the world _should_ be run, congress should have standing to sue. They’ve been elected by their constituents to represent them in government. To the extent that a president is violating the law or constitution, then congress should be able to sue on behalf of their constituents, who have an interest in the government being run according to the law and constitution. [I also think that courts should be quicker at dealing with lawsuits of all sorts, but that’s perhaps another matter, if somewhat related.] ---
**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 14, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/29 "2017-06-14T17:58:22Z")
It offends my sense of order to have this thread in Elections and the DC/Maryland lawsuit thread in Great Debates. I am moving this one from Elections to Great Debates. I’ll have to just deal with the fact that these will still be two separate threads. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/30 "2017-06-14T18:30:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I have no idea what the law is. But in my view of how the world _should_ be run, congress should have standing to sue. As the Court observed cogently: > [@](#): > > There would be nothing irrational about a system which granted standing in these cases; some European constitutional courts operate under one or another variant of such a regime. > . > . > . > But it is obviously not the regime that has obtained under our Constitution to date. Our regime contemplates a more restricted role for Article III courts, well expressed by Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974): > > > [@](#): > > > > The irreplaceable value of the power articulated by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall [in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)] lies in the protection it has afforded the constitutional rights and liberties of individual citizens and minority groups against oppressive or discriminatory government action. It is this role, **not some amorphous general supervision of the operations of government,** that has maintained public esteem for the federal courts and has permitted the peaceful coexistence of the countermajoritarian implications of judicial review and the democratic principles upon which our Federal Government in the final analysis rests." (emphasis mine) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/31 "2017-06-14T18:40:01Z")
The problem with that is that under the current system there could be laws where no one at all has standing to sue, leaving no check at all on the executive branch. This came up a lot under Obama. That said, the law is what it is. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/32 "2017-06-14T18:44:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It offends my sense of order to have this thread in Elections and the DC/Maryland lawsuit thread in Great Debates. I am moving this one from Elections to Great Debates. > > I’ll have to just deal with the fact that these will still be two separate threads. > > [/moderating] That might be funniest mod note I’ve seen. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/33 "2017-06-14T18:45:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The problem with that is that under the current system there could be laws where no one at all has standing to sue, leaving no check at all on the executive branch. This came up a lot under Obama. The “common-sense” view expressed by the “standing” rules - if you cannot show any damage to yourself, why should you sue? Although I am not sure I fully agree with that, I can see the courts cluttered even more than they are now with frivolous cases if this rule was not there. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/34 "2017-06-14T18:58:40Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The “common-sense” view expressed by the “standing” rules - if you cannot show any damage to yourself, why should you sue? The premise of the system of government that we have is that we elect legislators who enact laws and the executive branch is required to enforce those laws in good faith. If no one has standing to challenge the executive branch on such laws then they have carte blanche to ignore them. People need a certain level of direct impact on them to have standing to sue - just the general notion that you believe a certain policy will benefit the country in the long run and you by extension doesn’t cut it. But you could still have an interest in having laws intended to benefit the country in the long run carried out as enacted by elected representatives. So I think the elected representatives themselves should have the right to sue to enforce the good faith enactment of the laws they passed. > [@](#): > > Although I am not sure I fully agree with that, I can see the courts cluttered even more than they are now with frivolous cases if this rule was not there. I agree. That could be a disaster. That’s why I put the bracketed comment in my initial post to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/35 "2017-06-14T19:16:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It offends my sense of order to have this thread in Elections and the DC/Maryland lawsuit thread in Great Debates. I am moving this one from Elections to Great Debates. > > I’ll have to just deal with the fact that these will still be two separate threads. > > [/moderating] I suppose you could merge them. Would that help your equilibrium? They’re two different topics, but very very close. ---
**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 14, 2017, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/36 "2017-06-14T21:40:46Z")
I don’t understand the legal side of the issue. The electorate knew they were voting for a billionaire businessman, so what is the problem with his business income? ---
**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 14, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/37 "2017-06-14T21:52:12Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I don’t understand the legal side of the issue. The electorate knew they were voting for a billionaire businessman, so what is the problem with his business income? The legal side is whether Trump is violating a rule in the Constitution and who has standing to take him to court over it. What the electorate expected or knew has zero to do with anything. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/38 "2017-06-14T22:19:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As the Court observed cogently: > > [**Bricker’s** citation of _U.S. v. Richardson_] > (emphasis mine) Man, that is the most intelligent way I’ve heard somebody say “neener neener neener.” Kudos, amigo. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/39 "2017-06-14T22:31:35Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The “common-sense” view expressed by the “standing” rules - if you cannot show any damage to yourself, why should you sue? > > Although I am not sure I fully agree with that, I can see the courts cluttered even more than they are now with frivolous cases if this rule was not there. In other words, then, the only remedy for violation of the Emoluments clause is impeachment? ---
**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 14, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/40 "2017-06-14T22:38:39Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > In other words, then, the only remedy for violation of the Emoluments clause is impeachment? Violation by the President, perhaps. Violation by others there have been examples and remedies including withholding of pay/pension to recover the amount determined to be an emolument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=3)