Politicsliberalidiotsteachinglaw

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:18 AM

No, Trump is NOT violating the Emoluments Clause

Legal Scholar: ‘Wildly Inaccurate’ to Accuse Trump of Violating Constitution With His Businesses



On Monday, LawNewz posted an article citing legal experts that said President-elect Donald Trump‘s conflict-of-interest with his hotels and other businesses raise serious impeachment concerns. Several prominent experts have now come forward with similar theories stating that Trump could have an “impeachment issue because you have foreign states basically paying money to the Trump Organization by using their hotels.” These experts base this on an obscure provision of the U.S. Constitution called the “Emoluments Clause,” But, Seth Barrett Tillman, a legal scholar, who has spent 8 years actually studying and writing about this clause, told LawNewz all of these so-called experts have it completely wrong and are “wildly inaccurate.”

He said if they had thoroughly investigated this clause, they would have come to the same conclusion that he did: the clause doesn’t apply to the president. In fact, there is some pretty convincing evidence that it doesn’t. Take for example, President George Washington.

“George Washington was not stupid or dishonest. He took diplomatic gifts and he didn’t ask for congressional consent and he didn’t get it. If he didn’t follow the Emoluments Clause, there is no reason to think President Trump has to either,” Tillman, a lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law told LawNewz.com in an interview.

The Emoluments Clause says that “no person holding any office” of the United States “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.” Some legal experts have interpreted this to mean that President Trump is barred from receiving foreign gifts. But Tillman points out this clause was never intended to be enforced against the president.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/legal-scholar-wildly-inaccurate-to-accuse-trump-of-violating-constitution-with-his-businesses/

Anyone who got a Law Degree from Elizabeth Warren should get a refund

22 replies, 866 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply No, Trump is NOT violating the Emoluments Clause (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Jun 2017 OP
Scary Red Jun 2017 #1
Solesurvivor Jun 2017 #3
I814U2CY Jun 2017 #13
Solesurvivor Jun 2017 #2
Scary Red Jun 2017 #6
Solesurvivor Jun 2017 #7
Scary Red Jun 2017 #8
TM999 Jun 2017 #9
Scary Red Jun 2017 #10
TM999 Jun 2017 #11
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Jun 2017 #15
Letmypeoplevote Jun 2017 #17
Solesurvivor Jun 2017 #19
fszwfnj Jun 2017 #4
Muddling Through Jun 2017 #5
Tovera Jun 2017 #12
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Jun 2017 #14
Letmypeoplevote Jun 2017 #16
The Big Red Machine Jun 2017 #18
Zappa Dappa Doo Jun 2017 #20
Fiendish Thingy-BC Jun 2017 #21
Doctor_R Jun 2017 #22

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:28 AM

1. Maybe, maybe not, but what's being ignored in all this talk is that...

we have never had a President whose personal business ventures were so overwhelming. And so invisible.

If the only financing he could have gotten was Russian, how does this figure into "emoluments"?

If he offers special deals to some foreigners at his golf courses or hotels, how does this count? If he promises capital works in foreign countries, is he bribing them?

If they spend at his properties, how does that count? If they invest in his overseas properties?

No tax returns, no complete listing of interests... We have had wealthy Presidents, but never one whose business was so opaque.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:38 AM

3. Bullshit, you know its just another attempt to keep him tied up.

Once this is swept away you'll move onto the next crisis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:03 AM

13. "No tax returns" Oh, bullshit. Obama's IRS saw Trump's tax returns for 8 years straight.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:37 AM

2. Liberals won't admit it but they know its not in violation

of anything, its just another example of keeping Trump bogged down in bullshit trying to slow him down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:45 AM

6. And conservatives would never consider bogging down Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:47 AM

7. Hell ya it happened, not with bullshit like this though, they just held his agenda up in congress

but i guess two wrongs make a right, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:55 AM

8. The difference here is the possibility of wrongdoing that needs to be explored...

Besides, can you really defend a President slowed down by this minor stuff?

What if a real emergency happens? Something he can't tweet about and has to act.

New Orleans under water again? A major earthquake? An actual attack?

A new war in the Middle East? Revolution in Turkey? Chinese invasion of North Korea?+

You really trust Trump?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:56 AM

9. Jesus, the level of delegitimization by the neoliberal MSM

is nothing compared to even the worst of what the conservatives did against Obama.

There has been constant and unrelenting 'speculation' and wild accusations of supposed criminal acts from Russian collusion to obstruction of justice to now this.

This is a soft-coup and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:57 AM

10. Well, we never had such a complete asshole in that office before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:01 AM

11. Oh, horseshit.

Every president in my lifetime has been an 'asshole' in one shape or another.

That this is your excuse shows just how programmed, petty, and ignorant you and your tribe really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:17 AM

15. What you describe is called sedition, and is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:40 AM

17. D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump flagrantly violating emoluments clause

Here are some facts for the silly laypersons to ignore or not be able to understand https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-and-marylands-lawsuit-trump-flagrantly-violating-emoluments-clause/2017/06/12/8a9806a8-4f9b-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_emoluments-354pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.afb9ecd09c03

Democratic state attorneys general, a chief roadblock to some of President Trump’s most controversial policies, escalated their campaign against him Monday, alleging in a lawsuit that payments by foreign governments to Trump’s businesses violate anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, marks a turning point for Democratic attorneys general and showcases their increasingly influential role in Washington at a time when their party is largely shut out of power.

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh say in the lawsuit that Trump’s decision to retain ownership of his business empire, and from inside the White House, “calls into question the rule of law and the integrity of the country’s political system.”

At a news conference, Racine and Frosh accused Trump of “flagrantly violating” the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officeholders from taking anything of value from foreign leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:05 AM

19. They are only doing this to get a look at Trumps Taxes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:42 AM

4. They want his tax returns

The nitwit from MD that is suing Trump was explaining the rationale on NPR yesterday and let the cat out the bag when he said this suit would force Trump to release his tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fszwfnj (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 08:45 AM

5. The appropriate response to this stupid lawsuit is

"Sod off, Swampy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:01 AM

12. Seems like a pretty weak argument, to be frank.

Tillman's argument, as presented in the linked article, takes two parts. One is, basically, "Washington got away with it." That's unconvincing. Washington was, at the time those two diplomatic gifts were given, wildly popular. Another explanation for the lack of official objection may well have been that to do so would have been a very, very bad political move. Best to look the other way...

Tillman's second argument is that the offices of President and Vice President are explicitly mentioned in other clauses. That's true...but to assert that this difference reflects the Founders' intent to exclude the president from the Emoluments Clause is a stretch, to say the least. The actual language of the latter clause specifies "no person holding any office" (emphasis mine). That language is unequivocal, and I'd argue that any exclusion of the president would have to be explicit, not vaguely implied by a different usage in another clause.

There may be some legal precedent that adds weight to Tillman's argument (none appear in the article, but he implies such exust in "the literature"); that's not my field. But the linguistic argument is very weak indeed (and that is an area in which I have expertise).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:16 AM

14. Those falsely claiming he is are engaged in sedition against the US Government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:38 AM

16. Do you tire of being wrong?

Trump is violating the US Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:41 AM

18. LOL, your professor isn't even from an American law school. How embarrassing!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Big Red Machine (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:20 AM

20. Yeah, well this Irish University

Last edited Tue Jun 13, 2017, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

in 2016 was ranked 651-700 in the QS World University Rankings, so they're highly regarded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:39 AM

21. Yet to be determined in a court of law

With the profits being reaped by Trump & family & co, we are in uncharted waters. No past president has used the office to enrich himself, while in office, the way Trump is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy-BC (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:16 AM

22. It is

payment for services rendered.

It isn't a gift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsliberalidiotsteachinglaw