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:
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.
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.)
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?
Except there is a way to enforce it–impeachment and removal.
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
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.
The people bringing the suit didn’t vote for him, and don’t think the electorate should have voted for him either.
Regards,
Shodan
So many years since I read that book…….
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.
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.
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…
Hoover, 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.
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.
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.
IMHO, the way things are going, the sons of Trump won’t be so lucky.
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.
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.