Emoluments Case Going Forward

[DaisyDay]

There have been three emolument suits: 1) by Democratic attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland was tossed out by an appeals court last July, 2) a group of Democratic legislators is still ongoing and 3) this one, in New York by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) among other plaintiffs is now also moving forward.

U.S. appeals court says Trump cannot dodge foreign corruption lawsuit

A U.S. federal appeals court on Friday revived a lawsuit alleging President Donald Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by profiting from foreign and domestic officials who patronized his hotels and restaurants, moving a watchdog group closer to obtaining financial records from his real estate company.

Deepak Gupta is the lawyer for the plaintiffs. The ruling is not on the merits of the case, but on standing.

Friday’s ruling comes in a lawsuit filed days after Trump took office in January 2017. The plaintiffs included a New York hotel owner, an events booker in Washington and a restaurant trade group that allege lost patronage, wages and commissions from clients who now prefer Trump’s businesses over theirs because of the ability to gain the president’s favor.

The plaintiffs cite examples of foreign government entities, including the Embassy of Kuwait and a delegation from Malaysia, choosing Trump’s properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in Washington, over other venues.

The Justice Dept. is defending the president at taxpayer expense, which is correct as Donald is being sued as president, not as a private citizen.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Ah, yes. Democrats are such literalists about Constitutional language when it's not their guy on the chopping block. Problem is, no one is exactly sure what emoluments meant in the 18th century, and linguistic analysis of contemporary documents looks impressive on paper until you point out that it totally ignores the immediate context of the clause in question. It would also help if the Democratic lawyers would actually pronounce the doggone word it's supposed to be pronounced (ay-MOLE-uh-ments), but I suppose I chalk that one up to generations of 19th-century American Whigs being too anti-Catholic to be bothered to learn that in a Latin word like this the "o" would only be pronounced short if it were followed by a doubled consonant.

 

[DaisyDay]

Ah, yes. Democrats are such literalists about Constitutional language when it's not their guy on the chopping block. Problem is, no one is exactly sure what emoluments meant in the 18th century, and linguistic analysis of contemporary documents looks impressive on paper until you point out that it totally ignores the immediate context of the clause in question.

Perhaps then it is time for the courts to settle the question.

What do you consider the immediate context to be and what bearing does it have on this?
The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution (Congressional Research Service):

• The Foreign Emoluments Clause(art. I, § 9, cl. 8):“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [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.”
• TheDomestic Emoluments Clause(a.k.a.the Presidential EmolumentsClause) (art. II, § 1, cl.7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

It would also help if the Democratic lawyers would actually pronounce the doggone word it's supposed to be pronounced (ay-MOLE-uh-ments), but I suppose I chalk that one up to generations of 19th-century American Whigs being too anti-Catholic to be bothered to learn that in a Latin word like this the "o" would only be pronounced short if it were followed by a doubled consonant.

Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you, as does MacMillan. And American Heritage. And Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

Collins Dictionary gives separate pronunciations for English and American speakers.

I also learned the long vowel, short vowel, double consonant rule in 3rd grade (thank you, Mrs. Humphries) but the dictionaries all put the single "l" with "o" for some reason rather than the following "u". "e mol u ment" is how they divide it. Also, I don't know if it makes a difference, but the word came to English by way of Old French rather than directly from Latin.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry you find the pronunciation intolerable; I volunteer to be voluble about the problem in hopes that it is soluble.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

What do you consider the immediate context to be and what bearing does it have on this?

1. the context of the clause itself, which begins with forbidding titles of nobility, the implication being that the "emolument" in question means being on the payroll of a foreign power
2. the context of the rest of the document: Article I, Sec. vi.2 and Article II, Sec. i.7 are clearly using the word to mean the salary of U.S. Congressmen and the U.S. President, respectively; these are the only other times it is used in the same document

Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you, as does MacMillan. And American Heritage. And Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.

Yeah, that's the way lawyers pronounce it American English now. But if one is trying to position oneself as being a linguistic authority, one would expect them to demonstrate their expertise by pronouncing the word as originally intended in addition to arguing for its original meaning.

Also, I don't know if it makes a difference, but the word came to English by way of Old French rather than directly from Latin.

It does and it doesn't. Today, the Modern French pronunciation of the word uses the vowel sound /ɔ/, which is not in many English speakers' dialects and is usually confused with /a/, which is the sound today's lawyer pronounce emolument with. (This is probably the real story of how English speakers came to mispronounce it.) But either way, it wasn't a Standard Old French that Middle English speakers borrowed the term from. They borrowed it from the Normans, who existed long before a modern unified France could standardize the language through its education. These were actually Germanic peoples whose ancestors had learned Vulgar Latin in their own Nordic accents. So chances are, they mispronounced stuff, and that carried on into the evolution of English.

Sorry you find the pronunciation intolerable; I volunteer to be voluble about the problem in hopes that it is soluble.

It is quite soluble, if you remember that the way we pronounce things today is not necessarily how they were pronounced in 1789.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Ah, yes. Democrats are such literalists about Constitutional language when it's not their guy on the chopping block. Problem is, no one is exactly sure what emoluments meant in the 18th century, and linguistic analysis of contemporary documents looks impressive on paper until you point out that it totally ignores the immediate context of the clause in question. It would also help if the Democratic lawyers would actually pronounce the doggone word it's supposed to be pronounced (ay-MOLE-uh-ments), but I suppose I chalk that one up to generations of 19th-century American Whigs being too anti-Catholic to be bothered to learn that in a Latin word like this the "o" would only be pronounced short if it were followed by a doubled consonant.

The bigger problem is that they didn't view Obama's nobel peace prize as an emoluments case, which it arguably was.

 

[Hank77]

the context of the rest of the document: Article I, Sec. vi.2 and Article II, Sec. i.7 are clearly using the word to mean the salary of U.S. Congressmen and the U.S. President, respectively; these are the only other times it is used in the same document

What does this say?

TheDomestic Emoluments Clause(a.k.a.the Presidential EmolumentsClause) (art. II, § 1, cl.7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

Yes, Emoluments from the US is his regular compensation that is agreed upon.
He Shall Not receive any other compensation from the US, or any of the states in the US.

 

[DaisyDay]

The bigger problem is that they didn't view Obama's nobel peace prize as an emoluments case, which it arguably was.

He didn't keep the money - it was all donated to charity. And, as far as I can tell, the Nobel Committee is not a foreign government or a government representative.

Um, why do you consider that a bigger problem than the ongoing lining of Donald's personal pockets by foreign dignitaries?

Not to mention, every time he visits one of his own resorts - he doesn't provide golf carts gratis.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

What does this say?

TheDomestic Emoluments Clause(a.k.a.the Presidential EmolumentsClause) (art. II, § 1, cl.7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

Yes, Emoluments from the US is his regular compensation that is agreed upon.
He Shall Not receive any other compensation from the US, or any of the states in the US.

Here I thought to beg the question as a fallacy was to miss the point, and here you've shown me a whole new world of panhandling the question.

He didn't keep the money - it was all donated to charity.

Ah. Well, then. Since the law no longer matters so long as you forward the dividends of your crime to poor people, what say we down some moloko plus drenchrom at the Korova Milk Bar and do a little bit of the old ultraviolent on some lottery winner so that we can kopeet drinks for a few babuchkas at the pub, o my brothers?

 

[DaisyDay]

1. the context of the clause itself, which begins with forbidding titles of nobility, the implication being that the "emolument" in question means being on the payroll of a foreign power
2. the context of the rest of the document: Article I, Sec. vi.2 and Article II, Sec. i.7 are clearly using the word to mean the salary of U.S. Congressmen and the U.S. President, respectively; these are the only other times it is used in the same document

I would be very surprised if it were held to mean that the payments had to be regular and ongoing (payroll) to be considered emoluments.

Yeah, that's the way lawyers pronounce it American English now. But if one is trying to position oneself as being a linguistic authority, one would expect them to demonstrate their expertise by pronouncing the word as originally intended in addition to arguing for its original meaning.

It does and it doesn't. Today, the Modern French pronunciation of the word uses the vowel sound /ɔ/, which is not in many English speakers' dialects and is usually confused with /a/, which is the sound today's lawyer pronounce emolument with. (This is probably the real story of how English speakers came to mispronounce it.) But either way, it wasn't a Standard Old French that Middle English speakers borrowed the term from. They borrowed it from the Normans, who existed long before a modern unified France could standardize the language through its education. These were actually Germanic peoples whose ancestors had learned Vulgar Latin in their own Nordic accents. So chances are, they mispronounced stuff, and that carried on into the evolution of English.

It is quite soluble, if you remember that the way we pronounce things today is not necessarily how they were pronounced in 1789.

Who is positioning themselves as linguistic experts? Surely not the lawyers or the newscaster. And yes, language changes. It seems silly and pretentious to try to pronounce a word as it would be spoken if it were in its original dead root language rather than in the language one speaks and the language one's listeners understand.

 

[~Zao~]

Sounds very Serpico

 

[DaisyDay]

Sounds very Serpico

In what possible way?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I would be very surprised if it were held to mean that the payments had to be regular and ongoing (payroll) to be considered emoluments.

No one said anything about the payments having to be regular or ongoing. Only that they have to be official compensation for doing a defined job. That has been Trump's defense this whole time. And he's right. Now, you want to argue it looks like a conflict of interest and should have been avoided? Sure, okay. I happen to agree. But it is NOT in violation of Constitutional law.

Who is positioning themselves as linguistic experts? Surely not the lawyers or the newscaster. And yes, language changes. It seems silly and pretentious to try to pronounce a word as it would be spoken if it were in its original dead root language rather than in the language one speaks and the language one's listeners understand.

Yes. There are lawyers who have authored an amicus brief to the courts detailing linguistic arguments for the Democrat interpretation of the clause. I know because I sat in the same phraseology classroom as one of them.

No one understands emolument, not even Constitutional lawyers, much less the general public. When was the last time you used it in a sentence outside of referencing the Trump case? That's what I'm saying. If you want to argue for the original semantics of an antiquated term, then you had better be accurate about the pronunciation as well. It has no logical bearing on the argument, yes, but one comes across as having hastily looked for the evidence as opposed to having known about it prior and brought it to everyone's attention now that it's potentially an issue. Lawyers are not scientists. They don't understand confirmation bias. That's why they regularly twist anything you say against you; their entire life process is to confirm their biases; they don't get paid to be objective. That's the judge's job. (But I think anybody who's been in the soft sciences as long as I have knows that social scientists and linguists are little better than lawyers.)

 

[DaisyDay]

No one said anything about the payments having to be regular or ongoing.

Then what did you mean by "the "emolument" in question means being on the payroll of a foreign power"? To me, being on the payroll means regular and ongoing rather than a one-time payment. Perhaps being on a payroll has different implications to you.

Only that they have to be official compensation for doing a defined job.

To the IRS, that is the opposite of being on the payroll.

That has been Trump's defense this whole time. And he's right. Now, you want to argue it looks like a conflict of interest and should have been avoided? Sure, okay. I happen to agree. But it is NOT in violation of Constitutional law.

Well, we'll see what the courts have to say about that.

Yes. There are lawyers who have authored an amicus brief to the courts detailing linguistic arguments for the Democrat interpretation of the clause. I know because I sat in the same phraseology classroom as one of them.

Okay, there are such lawyers, but you were complaining about "the Democratic lawyers" who, in your opinion, are mispronouncing an English word because they don't pronounce it as if it were Latin....

No one understands emolument, not even Constitutional lawyers, much less the general public. When was the last time you used it in a sentence outside of referencing the Trump case? That's what I'm saying. If you want to argue for the original semantics of an antiquated term, then you had better be accurate about the pronunciation as well. It has no logical bearing on the argument, yes, but one comes across as having hastily looked for the evidence as opposed to having known about it prior and brought it to everyone's attention now that it's potentially an issue. Lawyers are not scientists. They don't understand confirmation bias. That's why they regularly twist anything you say against you; their entire life process is to confirm their biases; they don't get paid to be objective. That's the judge's job. (But I think anybody who's been in the soft sciences as long as I have knows that social scientists and linguists are little better than lawyers.)

I'm pretty sure I made no argument for "original semantics"; in fact, I believe I said it's probably time that the courts settle it (see post #3).

 

[mothcorrupteth]

To the IRS, that is the opposite of being on the payroll.

Good thing the Founding Fathers were not the IRS, then. Payroll can just mean being on the list of people you pay.

Okay, there are such lawyers, but you were complaining about "the Democratic lawyers" who, in your opinion, are mispronouncing an English word because they don't pronounce it as if it were Latin....

Yes. Because said lawyers are Democrats. And they're quite excited over the aforementioned amicus brief.

I'm pretty sure I made no argument for "original semantics"; in fact, I believe I said it's probably time that the courts settle it (see post #3).

You didn't. But the Democrats have.

 

[cow451]

Sorry you find the pronunciation intolerable; I volunteer to be voluble about the problem in hopes that it is soluble.

I heard what you said!!!

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes. Because said lawyers are Democrats. And they're quite excited over the aforementioned amicus brief.

And who are these said lawyers? If the aforementioned amicus brief has any relevance to this thread, could you post a link or something?

You didn't. But the Democrats have.

Oh, the Democrats! Do you have a cite or something?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I heard what you said!!!

But do you grind food with your molars or your mollers, is the real question.

And who are these said lawyers? If the aforementioned amicus brief has any relevance to this thread, could you post a link or something?

Emoluments Amicus Fitting To Turn Originalists Into Hypocrites, Again

 

[cow451]

But do you grind food with your molars or your mollers, is the real question.

I have peeps to grind my food for me.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I have peeps to grind my food for me.

Then your emolument to them is rather literal, because that is the primary proposed etymology of the word: molere. To grind.

But please don't molest their contracted salary; leave it in place, so that they can continue to enjoy the effects of the secondary proposed etymology: ēmōlior. To stir or work up or cause.