How do they prove standing? IANAL, but as I understand it, to be a party in a lawsuit such as this you have to prove that you, personally, have suffered direct injury from the asserted action. How do they convince a judge of that?

And what power does the judiciary have over the executive? If the suit is allowed to go forward and the court finds for the plaintiff, what remedy can the court assert? And what happens if 45 tells the court to take their decision and stuff it?

Seems to me thzt impeachment is still the only realistic remedy.

"no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, 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."

I think the key in this instance is the "without the consent of Congress" part, where you have Democratic members ***of Congress*** filing suit, which should theoretically give them "standing" due to explicit mention in the Constitution of their role in that clause. Their "harm" being the inability to carry out their Constitutionally-mandated oversight function when Drumpf refuses to turn over (or show proof of doing so) any "profit" or other gains/gifts from foreign countries, back to the federal government, when congressional "exceptions" have not been granted.

As an example, Presidents (and their families) often receive gifts from heads of state when visiting foreign countries and most are NOT personally kept (unless given explicit exemption by Congress or they are given the option to personally purchase the items) and are turned over to the federal government for the National Archives. I.e., that stuff "belongs to the U.S. government/people".

the majority in charge of Congress which is the Repugnants so if that approach is tried the lawyers will probably argue that Trump has consent because Congress has not sought to prevent it.
After all there is almost no way anyone could get 100% consent from every single member of Congress which is why the courts would look to a majority.

if a challenge is brought. I think the law was pretty clear. I would expect that this could be a set up situation for a discharge petition in the House (if Democrats have some legislation in place to challenge him) to vote on regarding whether waivers or no waivers will occur in this instance... for the record.

I expect the lawsuit is an attempt to kickstart a process since he had "promised" to donate and so forth.... but we are still somewhat "early" in this administration's term.

makeup of SCOTUS I wouldnt be surprised if they were to prevail.

that the GOP may try to stall by coming up with some compromise to institute a timeframe (via legislation) for his stuff to be unwound (given how much he owns and how complex it is to do that).

That's why I think the Democrats are doing this - to kick-start something and force the issue back to the forefront. I think the SCOTUS is well aware of some potential bad precedents that might happen with this unusual President and the restrictions are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, which is definitely under their purview to review.

one lawsuit is not enough! weak!

would dismiss it since he owned the businesses before he because president and there isnt anything in the constitution that requires a new president to divest themselves of their assets before they were ever in elected office.

Even if it overcame all the obstacles it would take years and years in our legal system.

What he's done for personal and family gain is apparent to everyone and would have brought shrieks of dissent if tried by anyone else.

Keep it in the public eye even if his army of tax lawyers can stall it for years...
because it explains just who and what he is.

Hit him high, hit him low, till he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. Hint: he's going.

A basic point should be to encumber the attention and resources of the opposition.