Posted on 03/28/2018 10:32:00 AM PDT by GIdget2004
A federal judge has rejected President Trump’s push to dismiss a lawsuit against him for allegedly violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Maryland shut down the Justice Department’s arguments to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the attorney generals in D.C and Maryland, according to court documents.
Trump is accused of violating the clause, which prevents elected officials from receiving gifts or benefits from foreign governments without Congress’s approval. --This breaking news report will be updated.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Anyway, doesn't President Trump not accept his salary but donate it?
Good!
It will be better to the fascists slammed in a higher court.
Absolutely correct. The Federal judge is wrong. In the case of ruling in violation of the Constitution, he should be suspended pending judicial review.
Anyway, doesn't President Trump not accept his salary but donate it?
Correct, but irrelevant. He is still paid a salary, which is Constitutional. He receives no other payments from the US Government as part of his duties and thus is not receiving other emoluments.
The Department of Justice, in a 1974 Opinion Letter, by Assistant Attorney General Scalia, suggested that this clause does not apply to the president: “when the word ‘officer’ is used in the Constitution, it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President.”(Emphasis in original.) Scalia relied on an 1878 Supreme Court case concluding that “officer of the United States” only refers to appointed officials.
I contend that no one knows for sure, since is has never been litigated. I've heard arguments that it does not apply to the President or VP. Trump, nevertheless has contended that it does NOT apply to the president, but he has taken the step to return any money made thru Trump holdings while he is president.
I would posit that in the Scalia case, he was quite incorrect. The Emoluments Clause is in Article II Section I regarding the office of the President and specifically states that the President shall not receive other Emoluments from the United States or any other (meaning individual States).
Just because it has not been contested in court does not give way that no one knows what it is about. Those that are against The Donald are simply throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks and to keep the POTUS in constant defense mode.
I agree with you.
I’ve heard some pretty clear headed thinking that the framers did not intend for the emoluments clause to pertain to the president and vp.
Nice article but the author is lying when he says the Emoluments Clause is about foreign payments. I believe the professor that ProPublica cites may be insisting the same thing, that the clause has nothing to do with foreign payments. In that respect, I agree. The clause is crystal clear as to its intent, the FF’s did not want the POTUS to be getting side payments from the US or any of the various States, which would be tantamount to bribery.
But the essence of the article is a straw man argument. It builds its case regarding foreign payments when the clause has nothing to do with that.
The president appeared in front of reporters with a woman attorney shortly before his inauguration.
They had a mountain of manila file folders piled in front of them.
The president explained how his business interests were being turned over to sons Don Jr. and Eric.
The profits from his foreign investments were going to be donated to the U.S. Treasury.
Meanwhile, the president is only accepting a salary of one dollar per year.
This lawsuit is just harassment from moonbat liberals. The “judge” must be one as well.
There are more than one emoluments clauses. The Foreign Emoluments Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, also called the Title of Nobility Clause is probably the one used in the lawsuit.
You are quite correct. Forgot about that one. The one flaw in their argument, however, is that Article I Section 9 refers to what Congress can receive.
If Trump is avoiding the controversy by making sure that any revenue rec’d from foreign governments etc is not going to him, then why is there any issue?
However, let’s take the real offender. If the emoluments clause pertains to people holding office in the federal govt then Hillary Clinton violated it FAR and AWAY more than anyone probably 100 times over. I fail to see where Trump has benefitted.
There is nothing in the emoluments clause, as I see it that requires him or Pence to sell all their holdings. And that apparently is what they bast*rds are trying to pull here.
Art I, Sec 8
“8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
PaulJ pointed out, correctly, that there is more than one emoluments clause (spaced that one). So your comment is quite correct as the pertinent section is regarding the Congress. I take back what I said about Saint Scalia. He was correct in his opinion. I shall have to say a few Hail Scalia's...
Like I said earlier, I believe the opposition is in assault mode, keeping The Donald on (what they believe) the defensive.
However, let’s take the real offender. If the emoluments clause pertains to people holding office in the federal govt then Hillary Clinton violated it FAR and AWAY more than anyone probably 100 times over. I fail to see where Trump has benefitted.
Agreed. I have long given up holding my breath awaiting indictments...
There is nothing in the emoluments clause, as I see it that requires him or Pence to sell all their holdings. And that apparently is what they bast*rds are trying to pull here.
Concur. The clause falls under limitations on the Congress.
Who is that Fox contributor, short chunky guy, I think he was an advisor to Romney maybe Santorum too. He teaches a government course at some college.
He was on Fox some months back and said he’s been teaching about the emoluments clause in his classrooms for years, that it does NOT pertain to the Pres and VP.
Who am I thinking of?
Yup. The dems want to hamstring Trump like they did Palin, raise a bunch of ethics questions that takes time, effort, and money to fight off. Palin just walked away eventually and they'd love for Trump to do the same. The difference between Trump and Palin though is a few billion dollars and the best lawyers in NY. He's not going to be held back by this sort of nonsense.
I read recently that Trump properties have lost billions since he became president. These people will poop their panties if we have to cut a check to him to cover his loses.
Yes, nitwit is gender neutral.
Isn’t “Jo” the female spelling? Are you certain Peter identifies as male? And what is zir’s pronoun, just to be tolerant of ze.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.