General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Two Arcane Clauses In The Constitution Could Expose Trump's Businesses
Two years into Donald Trumps presidency, we still know relatively little about the inner workings of his family business, the Trump Organization. But on Tuesday, a case that could force the company to reveal some information about its finances faces a big test in a federal appeals court in Virginia. Judges will hear oral arguments over whether a lawsuit alleging that President Trump is violating the Constitution by accepting payments from state officials and foreign diplomats at his Washington, D.C., hotel, which the Trump Organization operates, can go forward. The case is one of a trio of lawsuits that were filed relatively early in Trumps term and claim that the president is violating two little-known clauses of the Constitution that prohibit federal officials from accepting titles, gifts or emoluments from foreign countries, the federal government or state governments.
Legal experts initially predicted that the cases wouldnt make it very far. But last year, a federal judge in Maryland handed down a series of rulings in favor of one set of challengers Washington, D.C., and Maryland allowing them to issue subpoenas for financial information related to the hotel from several branches of the Trump Organization. In response, Trump appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia to get the case thrown out or, barring that, to at least temporarily stop it from moving forward. And the outcome of this high-stakes case could hinge on how the court chooses to interpret emolument a word that dropped out of our common lingo more than a century ago.
Its rare for judges to be faced with a legal issue that is actually novel, particularly when it comes to the Constitution. But the emoluments clauses, which were initially designed to guard against influence from foreign and other governments, are truly arcane. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutional meaning of the word emolument, said Georgetown law professor John Mikhail, who co-authored an amicus brief in support of D.C. and Maryland on the history of the word.
In other words, what the founders meant when they barred federal officials and the president from accepting emoluments is a central question in this case, although the appeals court judges will also have to consider other issues, like whether the states have the authority to bring the suit in the first place. Trumps attorneys have contended that the president is not in violation of the emoluments clauses because they specifically refer to a payment for a service like a salary or consulting fee accepted from a foreign or state government in ones official capacity as president. Trumps opponents, on the other hand, have argued for a much broader definition that includes any kind of benefit or profit gained from a foreign or state government during ones presidency, which would encompass payments received from foreign countries or state officials at Trumps hotel.
-more-
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-two-arcane-clauses-in-the-constitution-could-expose-trumps-businesses/
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)virtually unthinkable. They were well aware back then how easily 'payoffs' from foreign governments could take the form of something appearing to be 'legitimate', like profits from a business.
Even if they weren't, including profits from PERSONAL businesses is CLEARLY logical ... it falls into the general category of 'income', just as 'salary' or 'consulting fee' would. The SPIRIT of the Law very obviously suggests what Trump is doing is WRONG.
A President has got to clearly and decisively divest themselves from direct interest in any businesses in which foreign governments/agents can potentially exercise financial pressure over their decisions. Same exact reason it's illegal for foreigners to contribute to campaigns ... that's the spirit of the law. Period.
If the judges that try this case are legit, this should be what they find. At minimum they should end up requiring Trump take much more concrete steps to divest in his businesses. This 'letting his kids run it' bullshit should NOT FLY.
LEW
(1,072 posts)it truly has opened a pathway of thinking for me. The only lingering question for me is the complete and vast changes we all have gone through with the advent of the computer. It is not as easy as before to have no foreign influence in business, and I believe a real discussion needs to had with the advent of the computer age. This question, like many other points, needs to be openly discussed and definitely identified for our future government.
Karadeniz
(22,526 posts)foreign businesses or because he'd be earning outside money? I know Reagan got congressional permission to receive income from his acting days. I thought it was weird that Trump was allowed to forego a salary and live off his personal income. Also, that he was allowed to keep the post office hotel after signing a contract that specified it couldn't be owned by a govt employee.Govt needs to.hash through this pay mess.