# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/101 "2017-06-17T16:33:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes and no. > > Yes, the rules are written by humans and are subject to change. > > No, the rules, once set, need to be followed else you have anarchy. > > The mechanisms for changing the rules exist. > > The highest set of rules that govern this country suggest president Trump is in violation of them. We do not know for sure though. How do we usually solve this problem? We go to the courts and ask them to decide. > > Not seeing how congress figures in to this. We are not asking the courts to create a law. That is the role of congress. The law already exists in this case. So you go to the courts for a decision. Same as is done a million times a year across the country. I confidently predict the courts will not decide anything that substantively affects Trump’s practices. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/102 "2017-06-17T16:37:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I confidently predict the courts will not decide anything that substantively affects Trump’s practices. I confidently you predict you are right. Now, can we get back to the debate? I mean, if all debates here ended on what the courts did or are most likely to do then there is not much point in the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/103 "2017-06-17T17:40:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I confidently you predict you are right. > > Now, can we get back to the debate? I mean, if all debates here ended on what the courts did or are most likely to do then there is not much point in the discussion. That concession would seem to end the debate. What point of contention remains? ---
**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 17, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/104 "2017-06-17T19:08:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That concession would seem to end the debate. > > What point of contention remains? The same debate legislators face: is the law broken, and if so, how can it be fixed? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/105 "2017-06-17T19:23:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That concession… It is no more a concession than agreeing with you that water is wet. As to the rest what **Left Hand of Dorkness** said. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/106 "2017-06-17T19:30:46Z")
> [@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 Courts will punt and say it is a political question to be settled by impeachment. ---
**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 17, 2017, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/107 "2017-06-17T21:50:56Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The Courts will punt and say it is a political question to be settled by impeachment. I have thought for months already that many, specially Republicans, do not want to talk about who should be the ones getting the bile for the people having to endure an incompetent like Trump. Ball is indeed with the Republican congress critters and it is time to go all Dick Butkus on them. ---
**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 17, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/108 "2017-06-17T22:13:47Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The Courts will punt and say it is a political question to be settled by impeachment. ^^ This. If Congress wants to write a law to elaborate on the matter they may, including the possibility of passing such law over a president’s veto. But so far they haven’t which leaves impeachment as the present means of dealing with the matter. Humbly the Democrats’ lawsuit lacks standing according to SCOTUS precedent. And the Democrats should have known it. That is not to say that \*someone \*might have appropriate standing but this would be a tough case to prove damages and a tough case to convince the court that granting relief is within the court’s power. Tough case all the way around. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/109 "2017-06-17T22:53:04Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > If Congress wants to write a law to elaborate on the matter they may, including the possibility of passing such law over a president’s veto. You don’t see the problem with that? Let’s put it this way: By that reckoning a democratic controlled congress can say what the 2nd amendment means. No need for an amendment process. Just declare it and be done. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/110 "2017-06-17T23:05:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You don’t see the problem with that? > > Let’s put it this way: By that reckoning a democratic controlled congress can say what the 2nd amendment means. No need for an amendment process. Just declare it and be done. But then the courts step in. They can overturn a bad law. You don’t go to the courts, right now, and say, “There are way too many handgun murders in the U.S.; the Second Amendment wasn’t made for this; we want a court ruling to make it harder to buy guns.” That’s not what the courts like to do. (And yet, they have done! There are numerous cases where courts have told states to improve prison over-crowding. There is some room for “legislating from the bench,” when an executive agency – such as a state bureau of prisons – acts in violation of the constitution.) But **Saint Cad** is almost certainly right: in this case, they won’t. ---
**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 17, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/111 "2017-06-17T23:58:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The point of the blind trust is that a foreign entity cannot give a backhanded bribe to get the president to do something for them. > > Yes the president will still benefit from their investments but in a blind trust someone else is managing it all so they don’t know where the money coming in is coming from so will not be swayed in their decisions. > > As has been noted this is a problem with Trump because blind trust or not it is trivial for a foreign delegation to say they are all staying at a Trump hotel and, just cuz, brought extended family and rented extra rooms for a nice vacation. What is your apparent fixation on a blind trust? As was stated before, LBJ was the first President to use one. Were all of the Presidents from 1789 until the 1960s violating the Constitution? Why weren’t they prosecuted? Or did the Constitution magically change? :rolleyes: ---
**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 18, 2017, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/112 "2017-06-18T00:00:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You don’t see the problem with that? > > Let’s put it this way: By that reckoning a democratic controlled congress can say what the 2nd amendment means. No need for an amendment process. Just declare it and be done. The Titles of Nobility clause clause in the Constitution bars office holders from engaging in certain actions \*unless \*they have consent of Congress. So it seems the Constitution invites action by Congress on this matter, should they so choose. Congress could act to describe in more detail what sorts of presents, titles, offices, or emoluments they might choose to permit or explicitly bar. And a future Congress could certainly change that. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, does not specifically have a similar invitation to Congressional action. Quite the contrary, the Second Amendment specifies only that a defined right shall not be infringed. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/113 "2017-06-18T03:36:34Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Congress could act to describe in more detail what sorts of presents, titles, offices, or emoluments they might choose to permit or explicitly bar. And a future Congress could certainly change that. Funny you should mention it because Congress did that. > [@](#): > > **Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act** > > Minimal Value for Foreign Gifts: $390.00 > > Every three years, the GSA is required to revise this minimal value. It has been updated effective January 1, 2017. > > Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 7432 requires the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to redefine every three years the definition for “minimal value” for a foreign gift, based on the changes in the consumer price index for the immediately preceding three years. The implementing regulation is 41 CFR 102-42, “Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and Decorations.” The current minimal value of $390 was defined in Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Bulletin B-41 (Foreign Gift and Decoration Minimal Value), dated 1/12/17. > > SOURCE: [https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/129418](https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/129418) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/114 "2017-06-18T03:50:36Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But then the courts step in. They can overturn a bad law. > > You don’t go to the courts, right now, and say, “There are way too many handgun murders in the U.S.; the Second Amendment wasn’t made for this; we want a court ruling to make it harder to buy guns.” That’s not what the courts like to do. Not sure I follow. The law exists (emoluments clause). It is in the constitution. No different than if congress passed a law except it is on steroids because constitution. So, the law is vague. Happens all the time so we turn to the courts to adjudicate how that particular law really works. This is done all the time. Gun control being a great example. If congress doesn’t like what the courts said they go back to the drawing board and try again. Or attempt an amendment. This is how it is supposed to work and it does. Doesn’t mean they come to the right decision every time (whatever that is) but the process works. ---
**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 18, 2017, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/115 "2017-06-18T06:26:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes – if you can show that he was getting similar prices prior to his election. Right. And, as I said, it matters not at all what the rates are if the Saudis are staying there in preference to anywhere else. Hello? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/116 "2017-06-18T16:31:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not sure I follow. > > The law exists (emoluments clause). It is in the constitution. No different than if congress passed a law except it is on steroids because constitution. > > So, the law is vague. Happens all the time so we turn to the courts to adjudicate how that particular law really works. > > This is done all the time. Gun control being a great example. > > If congress doesn’t like what the courts said they go back to the drawing board and try again. Or attempt an amendment. > > This is how it is supposed to work and it does. Doesn’t mean they come to the right decision every time (whatever that is) but the process works. I prob’ly wasn’t clear, but I’m agreeing with this. The place to start, if at all possible, is the legislature, not the courts. There are cases where we have had to go to the courts, because the legislature hasn’t acted. Prison overcrowding is one of those cases. But in general, we prefer to ask the legislature to clarify/interpret the basic law first, and then, if we have to, go to the courts to fix inconsistencies. It’d be nice if that worked more often, but – Brown vs. Board of Education – it doesn’t always. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/117 "2017-06-18T18:54:20Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Right. And, as I said, it matters not at all what the rates are if the Saudis are staying there in preference to anywhere else. Hello? Have the Saudis changed their rate of occupancy since the election, then? Has their preference for Trump hotels as opposed to others risen? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/118 "2017-06-18T19:05:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Funny you should mention it because Congress did that. Perfect. Then you have no complaints. Congress chose those restrictions, applied to that class of people. Is the only flaw now that you want Congress to do something different and it won’t? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/119 "2017-06-18T19:27:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The same debate legislators face: is the law broken, and if so, how can it be fixed? Meh. Have at it. I have no opinion worth the keystrokes it would take to defend it. ---
**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 18, 2017, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924/120 "2017-06-18T23:42:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Have the Saudis changed their rate of occupancy since the election, then? Has their preference for Trump hotels as opposed to others risen? Considering that Trump’s DC hotel was opened only last year, that’s pretty much guaranteed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-sue-trump-over-emoluments/788924.md?page=7)