# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/41 "2017-06-15T14:50:05Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 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. Ah, but the Trumpster’s definition of “unconstitutional” seems to be “whatever gets in the way of what I want.” I still remember when during the campaign he was talking about ending birthright citizenship and it was pointed out to him that it violated the 14th amendment. “Well, the 14th amendment is unconstitutional, you know.” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/42 "2017-06-15T16:31:10Z")
What emoluments are the plantiffs alleging that Trump has received from a foreign King, Prince, or State? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/43 "2017-06-15T16:53:24Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What emoluments are the plantiffs alleging that Trump has received from a foreign King, Prince, or State? Visitors from abroad stay in his hotel, and pay money to do so. Some of them are employees of foreign governments. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/44 "2017-06-15T17:36:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Visitors from abroad stay in his hotel, and pay money to do so. Some of them are employees of foreign governments. Oh, it’s a lot more than that. Please allow me to re-post this handy link: [The Atlantic’s crib sheet of Trump’s alleged conflicts of interest](that provides a crib sheet of Trump’s alleged conflicts of interest.) ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/45 "2017-06-15T17:43:34Z")
When did the notion of standing come about? To put on a very uncomfortable originalist hat, would the framers of the Constitution have put in the emoluments clause in the constitution with the understanding that no party could enforce it? ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/46 "2017-06-15T18:11:19Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Oh, it’s a lot more than that. Please allow me to re-post this handy link: [The Atlantic’s crib sheet of Trump’s alleged conflicts of interest](that provides a crib sheet of Trump’s alleged conflicts of interest.) [You mean this one, I think.](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/) ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/47 "2017-06-15T18:32:13Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > To put on a very uncomfortable originalist hat, would the framers of the Constitution have put in the emoluments clause in the constitution with the understanding that no party could enforce it? Except there is a way to enforce it–impeachment and removal. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/48 "2017-06-15T19:07:58Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > When did the notion of standing come about? To put on a very uncomfortable originalist hat, would the framers of the Constitution have put in the emoluments clause in the constitution with the understanding that no party could enforce it? I don’t believe they did. The framers adopted this clause unanimously at the Constitutional Convention, and its importance to them is plainly indicated by their having enshrined it in Article 1 of the Constitution. To date, the clause simply hasn’t been much tested or case law established to follow, because virtually all officers of our government in positions of power divested themselves of any potential conflicts of interest upon taking office as a matter of custom and practice. Sadly, that has now changed. For those who think the bald partisanship of Republicans presently in Congress will save them on this issue, this reasoning by Samuel Alito during his tenure as a Deputy Attorney General might make them squirm a bit: [Alito’s conclusions on the emoluments clause](http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000158-b547-db1e-a1f9-ff7f60920001) The conclusion of the instant matter is not what’s important in Alito’s reasoning. What’s important is the reasoning itself, that: “the answer to [an] Emoluments Clause question must depend [on] whether the [arrangement] would raise the kind of concern (viz., the potential for ‘corruption and foreign influence’) that motivated the Framers in enacting the constitutional prohibition.” Moreover, I have a feeling Mueller’s report won’t hit the decks until early next year at the soonest. Just as the mid-terms are heating up. Thank you, **Boozahol Squid, P.I.** That is the one. I should have double-checked the link. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/49 "2017-06-15T19:18:37Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The electorate knew they were voting for a billionaire businessman, so what is the problem with his business income? The people bringing the suit didn’t vote for him, and don’t think the electorate should have voted for him either. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/50 "2017-06-16T06:15:39Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > _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.\* So many years since I read that book……. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/51 "2017-06-16T06:44:05Z")
> [@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? Billionaire businessman or not, the people can be taken to have voted for him in the expectation that, if elected, he would faithfully execute the Office of President and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which presumably extends at the very minimum to not violating it. The legal issue is whether his continued receipt of certain income is a violation of the Constitution. His pre-existing status as a billiionaire businessman is irrelevant to that; there isn’t a different and less onerous Constitution for billionaire businessmen. ---
**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 16, 2017, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/52 "2017-06-16T07:49:52Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I don’t believe they did. The framers adopted this clause unanimously at the Constitutional Convention, and its importance to them is plainly indicated by their having enshrined it in Article 1 of the Constitution. > > To date, the clause simply hasn’t been much tested or case law established to follow, because virtually all officers of our government in positions of power divested themselves of any potential conflicts of interest upon taking office as a matter of custom and practice. Sadly, that has now changed. > … Alas the tradition of presidents putting their businesses or assets into a blind trust only started in the 1960s. It has become the typical method of handling assets in office in recent times. But, of course, the Constitution does not provide an emoluments exception if assets are held in a trust. Several presidents continued to run their personal business while in office . Trump is hardly the first. Early presidents such as Washington and Jefferson to more recent times with Kennedy and LBJ, the White House has seen its share of office holders with business and/or investments. And though LBJ ostensibly placed his assets in a blind trust, the first president to do so, he also spoke frequently with the primary trustee who was well known to him. And LBJ had phone lines installed to the residence of the White House that bypassed White House operators. All to continue conducting his business according to biographer Robert Caro. But somehow now there is a belief that business transactions and profit equate to emoluments, a definition of emoluments that has not applied to entrepreneurial presidents before. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/53 "2017-06-16T08:09:08Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Alas the tradition of presidents putting their businesses or assets into a blind trust only started in the 1960s. It has become the typical method of handling assets in office in recent times. But, of course, the Constitution does not provide an emoluments exception if assets are held in a trust. > > Several presidents continued to run their personal business while in office . Trump is hardly the first. Early presidents such as Washington and Jefferson to more recent times with Kennedy and LBJ, the White House has seen its share of office holders with business and/or investments. > > And though LBJ ostensibly placed his assets in a blind trust, the first president to do so, he also spoke frequently with the primary trustee who was well known to him. And LBJ had phone lines installed to the residence of the White House that bypassed White House operators. All to continue conducting his business according to biographer Robert Caro. > > But somehow now there is a belief that business transactions and profit equate to emoluments, a definition of emoluments that has not applied to entrepreneurial presidents before. Well, of course, there’s only a constitutional problem with _foreign_ emoluments, which I suspect arose to a much lesser degree or not at all for earlier presidents with business interests/activities. ---
**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 16, 2017, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/54 "2017-06-16T08:23:07Z")
I imagine for most of the first century, say until the War of Secession, and since most of the Framers derived income in the normal way from land and cattle as gentlemen do, or if traders aspired to that, there wouldn’t have been a lot of investment vehicles to take profits from. Maybe, as equally traditional, investing in backing a trading ship’s voyage… ---
**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 16, 2017, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/55 "2017-06-16T09:54:31Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Well, of course, there’s only a constitutional problem with _foreign_ emoluments, which I suspect arose to a much lesser degree or not at all for earlier presidents with business interests/activities. [Hoover](https://millercenter.org/president/hoover/life-before-the-presidency), with one of the largest mining interests of his day? Having lived in Australia and China. Having owned mines in Burma, where he made his fortune. He had extensive international involvements. I’d be shocked if that didn’t include the local governments of the countries where his mines were located as customers. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/56 "2017-06-16T16:39:52Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > I imagine for most of the first century, say until the War of Secession, and since most of the Framers derived income in the normal way from land and cattle as gentlemen do, or if traders aspired to that, there wouldn’t have been a lot of investment vehicles to take profits from. > > Maybe, as equally traditional, investing in backing a trading ship’s voyage… Washington had fisheries at Mount Vernon and sold shad in the West Indies, Jefferson exported wheat, Madison sold tobacco, etc. Generally planters during that type raise a cash crop for export. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/57 "2017-06-16T16:54:07Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > [Hoover](https://millercenter.org/president/hoover/life-before-the-presidency), with one of the largest mining interests of his day? Having lived in Australia and China. Having owned mines in Burma, where he made his fortune. He had extensive international involvements. I’d be shocked if that didn’t include the local governments of the countries where his mines were located as customers. And funny how a presidency that had almost no government experience ended up… In any case, Hoover did make an effort to avoid having conflicts of interest. > **[Questions of Profit in Politics Raised by Trump Administration Are Older Than...](https://time.com/4669729/conflict-of-interest-history/)** > > The question of whether government officials can do well for the nation and themselves at the same time has simmered since the early days of the Republic > [@](#): > > Some presidents had profitable businesses themselves, which could cause problems. For example, Herbert Hoover, who cashed out on his mining business after World War I, claimed publicly throughout the years that his money was in what we would consider a blind trust — but his story shows how hard it is to separate the politician for his business life. Congress investigated whether his son Herbert Clark Hoover Jr. was using his White House connection to benefit his radio-technology business. > > Nothing came of the probe, but as Fortune put it in 1932, the president’s wealth and that of his family remained “naturally” and “logically” an “object of interest” to the citizenry. “Hoover made careful that he didn’t look like he had conflict of interest,” according to Spencer Howard, the archives technician at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. “He removed all appearances of impropriety as best he could, but there’s really strong circumstantial evidence that his financial advisor was more active than he was claiming. Even if you have divested yourself, you still know people.” IMHO, the way things are going, the sons of Trump won’t be so lucky. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/58 "2017-06-16T16:58:55Z")
So the argument is, because nobody bothered to enforce the constitution against respected and competent presidents who don’t seem to have given any overt sign of having been influenced by their foreign business, that should be taken as precedent that that little bit of the constitution doesn’t actually exist now that we’re dealing with an incompetent amoral scumbag who very much seems to be influenced by foreign interests? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/59 "2017-06-16T20:01:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So the argument is, because nobody bothered to enforce the constitution against respected and competent presidents who don’t seem to have given any overt sign of having been influenced by their foreign business, that should be taken as precedent that that little bit of the constitution doesn’t actually exist now that we’re dealing with an incompetent amoral scumbag who very much seems to be influenced by foreign interests? One argument is: not everyone agrees with you that Trump is an incompetent amoral scumbag. Other who might agree still think that the “amoral scumbag” is not grounds for impeachment. Therefore, any argument you make that rests on the truth of that claim is going to founder. ---
**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 16, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/60 "2017-06-16T20:09:09Z")
Another argument: precedent is a big deal in law. If a law has been understood a certain way for a couple of hundred years it takes a lot to overturn that. The (apparent) argument that everyone understood these things as being violations of the law but decided not to enforce it anyway is extremely dubious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=4)