Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Why the emoluments clause will not end Trump's presidency

"Ka-Ching
"2019 will be the worst year of Donald Trump’s life"
Donald Trump is raking in big bucks from emoluments foreign and domestic."

All three of the lawsuits filed against Trump alleging emoluments violations face uphill battles in court.

Image

Jan. 7, 2018, 11:57 PM GMT+11 / Updated Jan. 7, 2018, 11:57 PM GMT+11

By Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School

As 2018 gets underway, many are continuing to look for ways to remove President Donald Trump from office. Recently, some Trump critics had staked their hopes on an arcane, little-known and virtually impossible-to-pronounce Constitutional provision known at the emoluments clause. But thanks in part to a recent federal court decision, we may never know what the clause means. While the court battles will continue, it now seems likely that the emoluments clause will not be the legal vehicle that ushers Trump out of the Oval Office.

[...]

The hurdle facing the plaintiffs in all of the suits is the same — something called “standing.” If you want to sue in federal court, you (as a person, an organization or a representative of the government) need standing. This means you had an actual or imminent injury which is concrete and particularized. You can’t just march into federal court and say “I was harmed.” You have to show a specific type of harm and demonstrate that if you win, that harm will be remedied.

Image

The first involved a suit by .. https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/23164833/EMOLUMENTS-COMPLAINT1.pdf .. a non-profit organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (or CREW).

CREW’s suit ultimately failed based on lack of standing. CREW found people who work at businesses that compete with Trump’s businesses and claimed that they’re unfairly losing business because foreign officials are now using, staying, or eating at Trump’s businesses instead of their businesses.

The judge’s opinion boiled down to the idea that CREW’s plaintiffs couldn’t show that their economic injury was caused by a violation of the emoluments clause, and they could not show that if they won, that would have the effect of solving their injury.

The judge also said this issue is one best left up to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. Noting that Congress has the power to consent to behavior that would otherwise violate the clause, the judge held that members of Congress, not judges, should determine when there is a violation.

The standing doctrine may well sound the death knell to the other two cases based on the emoluments clause.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-emoluments-clause-will-not-end-trump-s-presidency-ncna835331