Judge dismisses lawsuit alleging Trump violated Constitution
Source: Washington Post
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that President Trump violated the Constitutions emoluments clause because his hotels and restaurants do business with foreign governments while he is in office.
The plaintiffs argued that because Trump properties rent out hotel rooms and meeting spaces to other governments, the president was violating a constitutional provision that bans the acceptance of foreign emoluments, or gifts from foreign powers.
But Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York ruled that the plaintiffs, led by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), lacked standing to bring such a case, saying it was up to Congress to prevent the president from accepting emoluments.
As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendants conduct unlawfully infringes on that power, Daniels wrote in his ruling.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-alleging-trump-violated-constitution/2017/12/21/31011510-e697-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html
Looks like it is just stating the plaintiffs have no standing and it is up to Congress to determine.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)The cons are, that is.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)Assuming we can take back Congress!
riversedge
(70,218 posts)no hope whatsoever of Republicans doing the right thing.
C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)I'm surprised every hotel in DC isn't raising a fuss.
They can't grant Presidential favors to their guests.
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)I bet that might be coming!
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)What an awesome new age of jurisprudence we have embarked on.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Whether there is a constitutional violation, and what is the correct method of enforcement, are two different things.
This is a good result, because Congress cannot day, well, thats up to the courts.
forgotmylogin
(7,528 posts)The President is not supposed to profit from his position.
How can his name being on the sides of buildings not be seen as a "Presidential" business?
They made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm, right?
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)but seems he has done little of that considering all he has his tiny hands in... But his kids also run parts of the business and theoretically it could be named for them as well (although their behinds are sitting in the government too).
Shrek
(3,979 posts)It was dismissed for lack of standing.
FakeNoose
(32,639 posts)I'm certain we'll be hearing a lot more about this next year. It will eventually be included in the articles of impeachment.