General Discussion

bigtree

(86,005 posts) Fri Jun 9, 2017, 09:47 PM Jun 2017

DOJ Lawyers Tell Court Constitution Ban On Accepting Money From Foreign Govts Doesn't Apply To Trump

The Hill? @thehill

#BREAKING: Justice Department lawyers argue Trump can accept payments from foreign governments http://hill.cm/5pFnx4f

____ Lawyers for the Justice Department are arguing that President Trump isn’t violating a Constitutional provision that bars federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments because the clause doesn’t apply to certain transactions.

In a new brief asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Trump by ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), DOJ lawyers contend that the foreign emoluments clause doesn’t apply to “fair-market commercial transactions” like payments for hotel rooms and golf club fees, according to Bloomberg.

Trump administration lawyers also argue that CREW and other plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring the case against Trump and that Congress, not the court system, should determine whether Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause.

CREW filed the lawsuit during Trump’s first week in office “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments."

read: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337210-doj-lawyers-argue-trump-can-accept-payments-from-foreign-governments?rnd=1497052482

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ Lawyers Tell Court Constitution Ban On Accepting Money From Foreign Govts Doesn't Apply To Trump (Original Post) bigtree Jun 2017 OP

one would think this is specifically why this ban was enacted. total horseshit. spanone Jun 2017 #1

I see the little fucking elf has been busy at work. nt Phoenix61 Jun 2017 #2

Of course it doesn't apply to the oranges shitbag. Lil Missy Jun 2017 #3

What else are they going to argue? gratuitous Jun 2017 #4

Interesting, I guess fair market value has been tripled by the very fact the owner is the president MiddleClass Jun 2017 #5

They want Congress to decided a constitutional issue. That'll go over really well in federal court. tableturner Jun 2017 #6

good point bigtree Jun 2017 #7

There is a strong possibility courts would refuse to get involved on the basis tritsofme Jun 2017 #9

Commercial transactions would be a loophole you could drive a truck through unblock Jun 2017 #8

spanone

(135,885 posts)

1. one would think this is specifically why this ban was enacted. total horseshit.

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 09:50 PM

Jun 2017

Phoenix61

(17,019 posts)

2. I see the little fucking elf has been busy at work. nt

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 09:55 PM

Jun 2017

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)

3. Of course it doesn't apply to the oranges shitbag.

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 10:00 PM

Jun 2017

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

4. What else are they going to argue?

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 10:03 PM

Jun 2017

They might get some mileage from the standing argument, but the emoluments clause is pretty definite in who it applies to, and there's no "fair-market commercial transactions" exception in the Constitution.

MiddleClass

(888 posts)

5. Interesting, I guess fair market value has been tripled by the very fact the owner is the president

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 10:07 PM

Jun 2017

I guess his golf course at Mar a Lago triples in fair market value when he gets inaugurated also.

I hope he loses another one

tableturner

(1,684 posts)

6. They want Congress to decided a constitutional issue. That'll go over really well in federal court.

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 10:19 PM

Jun 2017

bigtree

(86,005 posts)

7. good point

Reply to tableturner (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 10:49 PM

Jun 2017

...should be a non-starter.

Courts enforce the Constitution. Congress had their crack when they ratified the clause.

tritsofme

(17,403 posts)

9. There is a strong possibility courts would refuse to get involved on the basis

Reply to bigtree (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 03:30 AM

Jun 2017

that the dispute is a "political question" that should be resolved between the elected branches. It is even more doubtful it would ever get to that stage, as any lawsuit would likely be thrown out due to standing.

unblock

(52,331 posts)

8. Commercial transactions would be a loophole you could drive a truck through

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 9, 2017, 11:59 PM

Jun 2017

Sorry I can't accept your foreign money, but you could buy this doodle, er, work of art I made, for $250,000!

Reply to this discussion