Skip to content

Judge dismisses emoluments clause lawsuits against Donald Trump

December 22, 2017

  Two groups filed separate lawsuits claiming that Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by not divesting himself from his real estate properties and businesses. Today a Federal Judge threw out the lawsuits claiming the groups did not have legal standing because it is up to the Congress to make a decision on this issue.

  Here is more:

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a pair of lawsuits claiming that President Donald Trump’s failure to divest himself of his real estate empire and other business holdings violated the Constitution’s provision banning receipt of foreign “emoluments” while in public office.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.

“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, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress
determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”

  He also said that even if foreign governments were patronizing Donald Trump’s establishments it would not be a violation of the emoluments clause unless Donald Trump was urging them to so so.

He also suggested that if foreign governments were patronizing Trump businesses as a result of his presidency, this wouldn’t amount to a violation of the emoluments clause unless the president encouraged them to do so to receive some benefit from the U.S. government.

  The emoluments clause specifically gives the Congress the power to consent to emoluments from foreign states so I believe the judge got this one right. We can debate whether or not Donald Trump is ethically challenged by his decision not to fully divest himself from his business interests and that is most likely what the Democrats in the Congress will now do.

  Of course with the Republicans in control of the Congress this is most likely not going to go anywhere but if the Democrats gain control of the Congress in 2018 they may push this issue. I expect this to become a campaign issue during the 2018 election cycle. I expect the possible impeachment of the President to be a major rallying cry in 2018 and I think this is one of the issues they will try to take advantage of.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

6 Comments leave one →
  1. petermac3 permalink
    December 22, 2017 9:48 pm

    I agree. This wil be merely one more bullet in the dem’s gun come the 2018 House campaigns. Keep in mind the electorate is impressionable as it is ignorant, mindless and ill informed. They don’t understand law anymore than they can separate truth and outright lying by the left and their lapdog media that revels in carrying the water for the democrats.

    Liked by 2 people

    • December 23, 2017 8:52 am

      Not only do they not understand the law they don’t care about it. All they care about is getting rid of Donald Trump and they do not even understand why they want him gone.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. December 23, 2017 11:44 pm

    This judge appears to have gotten the message from the SOTUS – “knock it off!” with all these cases against the POTUS.

    An article on the Daily Caller is titled “SCOTUS Keeps Rebuking Lower Courts That Rule Against Trump”

    “The concise, per curiam opinions they [SCOTUS ] have issued overturning these courts [9th & 4th Circuit Courts] seem to send a clear message — that the Court takes seriously its role as the keeper of equilibrium in a chaotic political system, and that all courts must respect the prerogatives of the administration.”

    Merry Christmas Mr. President!

    Liked by 1 person

    • December 24, 2017 7:47 am

      I think you are right, this has gotten out of hand with the lawsuits against everything the President does. It has to stop but I am waiting to see if somebody actually sues to try to stop the tax cuts.
      Thanks for sharing the video.


  3. Dr. Jeff permalink
    December 26, 2017 10:15 pm

    I’m old enough to remember Eisenhower and my political awareness began in the Kennedy/Johnson era. I have never before seen such blind violence and hatred in American politics and that includes the early 1970s which were pretty bad.

    I take that back, I have seen such violence and hatred, when Sheriffs in the South unleashed water cannon and attack dogs on Civil Rights Marchers.

    I have a cousin who is literally a Hollywood Liberal (script writer). His politics have become so lunatic that I don’t even try to talk to him. Besides, he already blocked me on Facebook for criticizing a bit of blind hatred he posted.

    Liked by 2 people

    • petermac3 permalink
      December 26, 2017 11:12 pm

      Hey pardner, I remember being home with my mom watching the conventions of 1956 with the people waving their signs on the end of long sticks. And the 1960 campaign, while only nine going on ten, I followed like Commander Cody episodes in the Saturday movies. The innocence of those days are gone forever, never to return. And how about Johnson and AuH2O in 64′?

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: