Trump's Justice Department Now Says the Emoluments Clause Doesn't Apply to His Hotels

[tulc]

Trump Justice Department Changes Emoluments Clause Stance to Allow Foreign Payments to His Hotels

To start the week, let's check out yet another way our unprecedented un-president* is cashing out his job like a third-rate carpet salesman in the Florida panhandle—which, come to think of it, is the kind of person that our unprecedented un-president* would stiff on a twenty-buck invoice. From the Guardian:

The so-called foreign emoluments clause was intended to curb presidents and other government officials from accepting gifts and benefits from foreign governments unless Congress consents. But in a forthcoming article in the Indiana Law Journal, the Washington University Law professor Kathleen Clark reveals justice department filings have recently changed tack. The new interpretation, Clark says, is contained in justice filings responding to recent lawsuits lodged by attorneys generals and members of Congress.Clark’s article notes that in more than 50 legal opinions over some 150 years justice department lawyers have interpreted the clause in a way that barred any foreign payments or gifts except for ones Congress approved. But filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” the professor writes.

tulc(thought this was interesting)

 

[HTacianas]

Trump Justice Department Changes Emoluments Clause Stance to Allow Foreign Payments to His Hotels

tulc(thought this was interesting)

Probably because the emoluments clause never applied to George Washington's tobacco business.

 

[tulc]

Probably because the emoluments clause never applied to George Washington's tobacco business.

...you mean like this:
George Washington’s Secret Land Deal Actually Strengthens CREW’s Emoluments Claim | Take Care

Recently, I posted an update on John Mikhail’s remarkable findings on Blackstone’s broad use of the word “emoluments” to apply to private transactions and benefits, much broader than the Trump lawyers’ narrow interpretation. Soon after, a few scholars returned to the argument, “But George Washington did it!”

George Washington bought federal land at an auction in 1793 while president. He also solicited personal business help from an English official. The argument goes: If George Washington did it, then he must not have thought it was an illegal emolument, and if he didn’t think so (nor if a handful of other people involved didn’t think so), then it wasn’t an emolument in the term’s original meaning. You can read Seth Barrett Tillman’s article here, and you can read Eugene Kantorovich’s pieces here and here. (Kantorovich’s position seems to be more suggestive and open-ended. Tillman seems to think Washington’s transactions as conclusive evidence of the clause’s narrow original meaning.)

“But Washington did it” arguments are not only weak, but in fact, Washington’s effort to keep these dealings quiet at least suggests he understood they were politically, legally, and maybe constitutionally problematic.

tulc(is just curious)

 

[HTacianas]

Trump Justice Department Changes Emoluments Clause Stance to Allow Foreign Payments to His Hotels

tulc(thought this was interesting)

That article is an unwarranted rationalization. Any particular example aside, all those men who wrote the constitution never suggested that a president must cease all private business while in office. I say it is a rationalization because it begins with the presumption of guilt and then -surprise- results in a finding of guilt.

The "emoluments thing" is a dead issue. It always has been. And given what the public has been subjected to with the "Trump collusion thing" and now the dying, last-breath-gasping "obstruction thing" over the last two years I don't see that anyone still has the credibility to even make the accusation.

If people want to debate Trump's handling of trade pacts, or his enforcement of immigration laws, or his negotiations with North Korea, or any other substantive issue, let them go right ahead. But the scandal-mongering has to stop.

 

[tulc]

That article is an unwarranted rationalization. Any particular example aside, all those men who wrote the constitution never suggested that a president must cease all private business while in office. I say it is a rationalization because it begins with the presumption of guilt and then -surprise- results in a finding of guilt.

The "emoluments thing" is a dead issue. It always has been. And given what the public has been subjected to with the "Trump collusion thing" and now the dying, last-breath-gasping "obstruction thing" over the last two years I don't see that anyone still has the credibility to even make the accusation.

If people want to debate Trump's handling of trade pacts, or his enforcement of immigration laws, or his negotiations with North Korea, or any other substantive issue, let them go right ahead. But the scandal-mongering has to stop.

...so no actual proof that "The "emoluments thing" is a dead issue. It always has been." I mean, it is in the Constitution after all so it must not have been considered dead during President Washington's time, you know, when the Constitution was actually being written.
tulc(which would seem to have been HTacianas point in post #2)

 

[FireDragon76]

...you mean like this:
George Washington’s Secret Land Deal Actually Strengthens CREW’s Emoluments Claim | Take Care

tulc(is just curious)

The idea that a little graft and corruption was good enough for Washington so it's good enough for Trump is a direct attack on our civilization's foundations in Protestantism's valuation of personal integrity.

 

[The Barbarian]

The idea that a little graft and corruption was good enough for Washington so it's good enough for Trump is a direct attack on our civilization's foundations in Protestantism's valuation of personal integrity.

It's another little window into the ethical standards of today's republican party.

 

[Ringo84]

A lying, corrupt, possibly senile president is in charge, a man who can't even pronounce books of the Bible correctly and brags about grabbing women by their private parts, and some people who call themselves Christians would crawl over broken glass to defend him.

Everything these people ever said about loving this country and respecting the Constitution and rule of law is a lie.
Ringo