I'd like to hear from No1marauder or SH76 on this, but it seems Trump's nakedly sales pitch about the next G7 summit, and a number of his past actions are pretty clear violations of Emoluments law (see link below), but - I don't see any legal backlash here, in fact Donald Trump seems to be skating through this Emoluments situation much like John Gotti, the teflon Don. So, I'm wondering - Are Emoluments laws really enforceable? or are these just old blue laws such as reg's against spitting on the sidewalk?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11086.pdf
@mchill saidTrump has probably already violated the Emoluments clause by holding on to control of many business interests that are affected by his actions as President. The G7 thing is just a small part of that.
I'd like to hear from No1marauder or SH76 on this, but it seems Trump's nakedly sales pitch about the next G7 summit, and a number of his past actions are pretty clear violations of Emoluments law (see link below), but - I don't see any legal backlash here, in fact Donald Trump seems to be skating through this Emoluments situation much like John Gotti, the teflon Don. So, I'm ...[text shortened]... laws such as reg's against spitting on the sidewalk?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11086.pdf
Is it enforceable? Sure. By Congress, by impeachment. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to enforce. If someone filed a lawsuit, it would probably be dismissed for lack of standing or under the political question doctrine. He couldn't be indicted (even if the DOJ didn't have a policy against indicting a sitting President) since the Emoluments clause is not a criminal statute.
28 Aug 19
@sh76 saidIs it enforceable? Sure. By Congress, by impeachment.
Trump has probably already violated the Emoluments clause by holding on to control of many business interests that are affected by his actions as President. The G7 thing is just a small part of that.
Is it enforceable? Sure. By Congress, by impeachment. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to enforce. If someone filed a lawsuit, it would probably be dismissed for lack of st ...[text shortened]... policy against indicting a sitting President) since the Emoluments clause is not a criminal statute.
Thank You, that does explain things a bit better. The chances of Moscow Mitch or our handwringing speaker Pelosi, taking such action, no matter how warranted are about the same as Mexico paying for that wall.
@sh76 saidActually there are several lawsuits pending though the one started by the State of Maryland and District of Columbia was dismissed at the appellate level for lack of standing, the one filed by 200 Congressman has survived so far. Personally, I find the idea that courts would refuse to consider these cases on their merits appalling; it suggests that Presidents are absolutely free to violate whatever Constitutional provisions they please and the only remedy is impeachment. I do not believe such a result is consistent with the Constitutional framework or the basic idea that no one is above the law.
Trump has probably already violated the Emoluments clause by holding on to control of many business interests that are affected by his actions as President. The G7 thing is just a small part of that.
Is it enforceable? Sure. By Congress, by impeachment. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to enforce. If someone filed a lawsuit, it would probably be dismissed for lack of st ...[text shortened]... policy against indicting a sitting President) since the Emoluments clause is not a criminal statute.
I regard the "political question" doctrine as an abdication of the judicial branch's obligation to rule on Constitutional questions and the extremely cramped view of standing right wing judges have imposed in the last few decades as unsupported by Constitutional text and framework.
29 Aug 19
@no1marauder saidI don't think the framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility that a political party would be willing to leap off a cliff on behalf of its Dear Leader.
Actually there are several lawsuits pending though the one started by the State of Maryland and District of Columbia was dismissed at the appellate level for lack of standing, the one filed by 200 Congressman has survived so far. Personally, I find the idea that courts would refuse to consider these cases on their merits appalling; it suggests that Presidents are absolute ...[text shortened]... ing judges have imposed in the last few decades as unsupported by Constitutional text and framework.