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.
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?
It is no more a concession than agreeing with you that water is wet.
As to the rest what Left Hand of Dorkness said.
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.
^^ 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.
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.
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:
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.
Funny you should mention it because Congress did that.
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.
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?
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.
Have the Saudis changed their rate of occupancy since the election, then? Has their preference for Trump hotels as opposed to others risen?
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?
Meh. Have at it. I have no opinion worth the keystrokes it would take to defend it.
Considering that Trump’s DC hotel was opened only last year, that’s pretty much guaranteed.