Emoluments Case Going Forward

[iluvatar5150]

 

[Cimorene]

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



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



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.

Good. He's not above the law.

 

[cow451]

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.

Good advice. The Municipal Amalgamated Grinders of America (MAGA) contract is running out next year, so negotiations are about to start.

 

[cow451]

Good. He's not above the law.

Shhhh..... don’t tell him that.

 

[DaisyDay]

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

Emoluments Amicus Fitting To Turn Originalists Into Hypocrites, Again

Thank you for the link to the blog commenting on the amicus. The only "Democrat lawyers" mentioned are the two AGs from DC & Maryland who filed suit (tossed last July) - are Karl Racine and Brian Frosh the two you claim who hold themselves to be "linguistic authorities"?

Well, whatever, this thread is about the suit in NY argued by Deepak Gupta on behalf of CREW, a restaurant trade group, an events planner, a hotel owner and others.
U.S. Appeals Court Reinstates Emoluments Case Against Trump

In a two-to-one decision, a panel of judges for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that a lower court had wrongly dismissed the lawsuit accusing Mr. Trump of violating the Constitution’s bans on accepting financial benefits from foreign or state governments. The appeals court judge sent the lawsuit back to the lower court, ordering it be allowed to proceed.

The decision comes nearly two years after the lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit. The case is one of three that have been ping-ponging back and forth between district and appeals courts as judges struggle with the novel legal questions raised by Mr. Trump’s decision not to divorce himself from his business empire while in office.

 

[DaisyDay]

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?

Straw man. Cute Clockwork Orange ref.

But, again, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a government or a representative of a government. And, again, why would you consider a one-time prize, donated to charity, to be a bigger problem than ongoing payments from governments, lobbyists and favor-seekers lining the president's pockets?

Does Obama need Congress' permission to get Nobel?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Thank you for the link to the blog commenting on the amicus. The only "Democrat lawyers" mentioned are the two AGs from DC & Maryland who filed suit (tossed last July) - are Karl Racine and Brian Frosh the two you claim who hold themselves to be "linguistic authorities"?

Wrong. Read it again. I'm not referring to them.

Straw man. Cute Clockwork Orange ref.

But, again, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a government or a representative of a government. And, again, why would you consider a one-time prize, donated to charity, to be a bigger problem than ongoing payments from governments, lobbyists and favor-seekers lining the president's pockets?

Does Obama need Congress' permission to get Nobel?

Also wrong. The Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. As Norway is a member of NATO sitting almost on the border with the Russian Federation, it is particularly important that we maintain a face of benevolent intention. Recruiting border states into NATO and showing them special favor despite the fact that Gorby dismantled the Soviet empire is exactly why Russia is like it is right now.

 

[DaisyDay]

Wrong. Read it again. I'm not referring to them.

No, I'm not going to read it again to try to guess what you mean when you could state it plainly without playing games. Furthermore, that blog is about a different case, so, if that blog has some relevance to the case at hand, just say what it may be.

Also wrong. The Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. As Norway is a member of NATO sitting almost on the border with the Russian Federation, it is particularly important that we maintain a face of benevolent intention. Recruiting border states into NATO and showing them special favor despite the fact that Gorby dismantled the Soviet empire is exactly why Russia is like it is right now.

The Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament as part of how the prize was set up, but it is not owned by or representative of Norway.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

No, I'm not going to read it again to try to guess what you mean when you could state it plainly without playing games. Furthermore, that blog is about a different case, so, if that blog has some relevance to the case at hand, just say what it may be.

I prefer not to relay information that makes me personally identifiable, but Clark Cunningham. Look at Clark Cunningham's work.

The Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament as part of how the prize was set up, but it is not owned by or representative of Norway.

No. The Nobel Foundation was initially set up as a private institution, but Nobel specified in his will that he wanted the Norwegian government to appoint a committee of its Parliament, and they obliged a few years after his death. That's currently in their governing documents: "The adjudication needed for the award of the Peace Prize shall be carried out by the committee of the Norwegian Storting referred to in the will, known as the Norwegian Nobel Committee." (Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, § 6) Moreover, according to their site, the committee members have to evenly reflect Norwegian political representation. Why would that be a stipulation if the committee were not an arm of the Norwegian government? There should be no doubt that Obama did receive a present from a foreign state while in office, and that was Constitutionally illegal. Doesn't matter if he gave the money to charity, just like it doesn't matter if I give stolen money to a homeless man--I still broke the law.

 

[DaisyDay]

I prefer not to relay information that makes me personally identifiable, but Clark Cunningham. Look at Clark Cunningham's work.

For what and why? Does it have any relevance to this case? Is he one of the "Democrat lawyers" you think should pronounce the English word "emoluments" as though it were Latin?

No. The Nobel Foundation was initially set up as a private institution, but Nobel specified in his will that he wanted the Norwegian government to appoint a committee of its Parliament, and they obliged a few years after his death. That's currently in their governing documents: "The adjudication needed for the award of the Peace Prize shall be carried out by the committee of the Norwegian Storting referred to in the will, known as the Norwegian Nobel Committee." (Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, § 6) Moreover, according to their site, the committee members have to evenly reflect Norwegian political representation. Why would that be a stipulation if the committee were not an arm of the Norwegian government? There should be no doubt that Obama did receive a present from a foreign state while in office, and that was Constitutionally illegal. Doesn't matter if he gave the money to charity, just like it doesn't matter if I give stolen money to a homeless man--I still broke the law.

The Nobel Foundation is a private Swedish foundation, not a branch of the Norwegian government.

 

[Hank77]

Emoluments Amicus Fitting To Turn Originalists Into Hypocrites, Again

Sorry, I'm confused, I must have misunderstand your position on this.
From the article you posted....
This is the kind of linguistic truth-telling that originalists are supposed to go in for. I would imagine this study being very compelling evidence for the conservative wing on the Supreme Court that Trump is wrong and his continued acceptance of foreign money in the form of hotel bookings is, in fact, an emolument prohibited by the Constitution.
Emoluments Amicus Fitting To Turn Originalists Into Hypocrites, Again

 

[mothcorrupteth]

For what and why? Does it have any relevance to this case? Is he one of the "Democrat lawyers" you think should pronounce the English word "emoluments" as though it were Latin?

Yes, and yes.

The Nobel Foundation is a private Swedish foundation, not a branch of the Norwegian government.

I never said the Foundation was a branch. I said the committee was an arm. It is a committee under their Parliament's authority.

Sorry, I'm confused, I must have misunderstand your position on this.
From the article you posted....
This is the kind of linguistic truth-telling that originalists are supposed to go in for. I would imagine this study being very compelling evidence for the conservative wing on the Supreme Court that Trump is wrong and his continued acceptance of foreign money in the form of hotel bookings is, in fact, an emolument prohibited by the Constitution.
Emoluments Amicus Fitting To Turn Originalists Into Hypocrites, Again

Do you feel you are misunderstanding me generally or specifically?

Generally, my position is that I'm classically conservative but pragmatic. I don't like Trump from the standpoint of principle, but there is the practical need to support him as the most viable alternative in our present context. If Rand Paul were more viable, I would shift to him in a heartbeat. (I'm honestly tempted by Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy views, but her abortion views are reliably terrible; Trump is at least a dice roll.) From the standpoint of principle, I don't even believe the U.S. Constitution is the ideal form of government, but there is the practical need to support it as the most viable alternative in our present context for preserving the rights and dignities of Orthodox Christians and the Protestant friends and relatives I care about in the United States. I'm not an originalist in principle and never claimed to be. Does this make me a hypocrite? I don't see it as such. A hypocrite is an actor who disguises his true feelings. I'm very open that I only favor originalist interpretation so long as opponents are willing to play by the same rules. But when opponents dispense with the rules, well... Only an abject idiot or Eddard Stark would cling to the rules when the game environment shifts to majority always-defectors. Always-cooperaters tend to go extinct in computer simulations, just as in real life.

Specifically, my position is that the meaning of emoluments is either ambiguous or indicated by the immediate context (the document itself) to be payment through employment. Whatever else the money Trump received through his hotel was, it was not a payment through employ, at least not on any paper that the opposition can produce. Nor was it a gift--at least, no one can document that that was its intention. But a Nobel Peace Prize? It's clearly in the name that it's a gift. It's clearly in the founding statutes that it's from the Norwegian government.

Still, let's say, for the sake of argument, that both are violations of the emoluments clause. Okay. You can say what you will about the Bush years, and I will probably agree, as a libertarian-minded conservative (i.e., Old Whig). But Obama accepted a foreign payment first, so to my mind, it's tit for tat. You let your guy get away with it; any evolutionarily stable strategy for surviving the game involves us letting our guy get away with the same thing. You want to call out the next one? Okay, fair. I might even back you on it, depending on the odds of a better deal. But this one is all on your guy.

 

[Hank77]

Moreover, according to their site, the committee members have to evenly reflect Norwegian political representation. Why would that be a stipulation if the committee were not an arm of the Norwegian government?

For the same reason that if the US formed an independent counsel it shouldn't be made up of all Republicans or all Democrats or even people who had ever been in a government position.

With this heavy representation by prominent politicians, it became difficult over time to convince the surrounding world that the Committee was not influenced in its work by Norwegian authorities. In 1936, in connection with the Nobel Peace Prize award to Carl von Ossietzky, the practice was changed so as to bar current members of the Government from sitting on the Committee. In 1977, out of continued regard for the Committee's independence, a further restriction was imposed whereby current members of the Storting can not be elected to the Nobel Committee.

Right now there are members who have never served in a government position and neither are politicians Asle Toje, Henrik Syse. Of the other three, two are politicians connected to the Labor Party, and one is a politician connected to Centre Party.

I really don't see how that group could be an arm of the Norwegian government.
The only other thing they could do to show their independence would be to elect someone who is not Norwegian.
From section 6
Swedish citizenship or membership of the prize-awarding institution shall not be a necessary qualification for election to membership of a Nobel Committee. Persons other than Norwegians may be members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, and yes.

I never said the Foundation was a branch. I said the committee was an arm. It is a committee under their Parliament's authority.

The money comes from the foundation which is a private Swedish organization, not a arm of the Norwegian government.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

The money comes from the foundation which is a private Swedish organization, not a arm of the Norwegian government.

But an arm of the Norwegian government selects who gets that money, and the medal.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

For the same reason that if the US formed an independent counsel it shouldn't be made up of all Republicans or all Democrats or even people who had ever been in a government position.

With this heavy representation by prominent politicians, it became difficult over time to convince the surrounding world that the Committee was not influenced in its work by Norwegian authorities. In 1936, in connection with the Nobel Peace Prize award to Carl von Ossietzky, the practice was changed so as to bar current members of the Government from sitting on the Committee. In 1977, out of continued regard for the Committee's independence, a further restriction was imposed whereby current members of the Storting can not be elected to the Nobel Committee.

Right now there are members who have never served in a government position and neither are politicians Asle Toje, Henrik Syse. Of the other three, two are politicians connected to the Labor Party, and one is a politician connected to Centre Party.

I really don't see how that group could be an arm of the Norwegian government.
The only other thing they could do to show their independence would be to elect someone who is not Norwegian.
From section 6
Swedish citizenship or membership of the prize-awarding institution shall not be a necessary qualification for election to membership of a Nobel Committee. Persons other than Norwegians may be members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Okay, I get it. It's "independent." It's just appointed by the Norwegian government to reflect the balance of the Norwegian people's political opinions.

So let's how about we form an "independent" committee of U.S. Congress that just happens to pony up cash to fund Left-wing dissidents in Russia. I'm sure the Duma will see things exactly as you do.

 

[Hank77]

Yes, and yes.

I never said the Foundation was a branch. I said the committee was an arm. It is a committee under their Parliament's authority.

Do you feel you are misunderstanding me generally or specifically?

Generally, my position is that I'm classically conservative but pragmatic. I don't like Trump from the standpoint of principle, but there is the practical need to support him as the most viable alternative in our present context. If Rand Paul were more viable, I would shift to him in a heartbeat. (I'm honestly tempted by Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy views, but her abortion views are reliably terrible; Trump is at least a dice roll.) From the standpoint of principle, I don't even believe the U.S. Constitution is the ideal form of government, but there is the practical need to support it as the most viable alternative in our present context for preserving the rights and dignities of Orthodox Christians and the Protestant friends and relatives I care about in the United States. I'm not an originalist in principle and never claimed to be. Does this make me a hypocrite? I don't see it as such. A hypocrite is an actor who disguises his true feelings. I'm very open that I only favor originalist interpretation so long as opponents are willing to play by the same rules. But when opponents dispense with the rules, well... Only an abject idiot or Eddard Stark would cling to the rules when the game environment shifts to majority always-defectors. Always-cooperaters tend to go extinct in computer simulations, just as in real life.

Specifically, my position is that the meaning of emoluments is either ambiguous or indicated by the immediate context (the document itself) to be payment through employment. Whatever else the money Trump received through his hotel was, it was not a payment through employ, at least not on any paper that the opposition can produce. Nor was it a gift--at least, no one can document that that was its intention. But a Nobel Peace Prize? It's clearly in the name that it's a gift. It's clearly in the founding statutes that it's from the Norwegian government.

Still, let's say, for the sake of argument, that both are violations of the emoluments clause. Okay. You can say what you will about the Bush years, and I will probably agree, as a libertarian-minded conservative (i.e., Old Whig). But Obama accepted a foreign payment first, so to my mind, it's tit for tat. You let your guy get away with it; any evolutionarily stable strategy for surviving the game involves us letting our guy get away with the same thing. You want to call out the next one? Okay, fair. I might even back you on it, depending on the odds of a better deal. But this one is all on your guy.

OK, I understand you and your position much better now and even agree with some of it.
Obama wasn't my guy. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton and wrote in drum roll....Rand Paul.

You might want to think about why you thought Obama was 'my guy'.

Thanks for the explanation, it was an interesting read.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

OK, I understand you and your position much better now and even agree with some of it.
Obama wasn't my guy. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton and wrote in drum roll....Rand Paul.

You might want to think about why you thought Obama was 'my guy'.

Sorry for the miscommunication. I meant it as a generic "your," not "your (of Hank77)." Fact is, even now I don't what your position is, and I don't assume you to be a libertarian or a Republican just for writing in Rand.

 

[Hank77]

Sorry for the miscommunication. I meant it as a generic "your," not "your (of Hank77)." Fact is, even now I don't what your position is, and I don't assume you to be a libertarian or a Republican just for writing in Rand.

I just thought it was interesting that we were both Rand fans, that's why I mentioned it.
I'm an unaffiliated voter. A fiscal conservative and somewhat socially liberal in things like universal health coverage. But even then I believe that universal coverage is the most cost effective way to go. (Rand obviously wouldn't agree with me).

 

[DaisyDay]

Okay, I get it. It's "independent." It's just appointed by the Norwegian government to reflect the balance of the Norwegian people's political opinions.

So let's how about we form an "independent" committee of U.S. Congress that just happens to pony up cash to fund Left-wing dissidents in Russia. I'm sure the Duma will see things exactly as you do.

Bad analogy as Norway isn't ponying up any of the cash for the prize - the private Swedish foundation is.