Lawsuit against Trump filed

[Belsnickel]

Okay, so it wasn't on Friday, like I had expected. But it is filed today.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/crew-sues-trump-emoluments/

Quote:Washington, DC—Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is bringing a federal lawsuit to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments. The lawsuit will be filed in the Southern District of New York when the court opens at 9 AM on Monday.

The foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution prohibits Trump from receiving anything of value from foreign governments, including foreign government-owned businesses, without the approval of Congress.

“We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said. “He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action.”

Since Trump refused to divest from his businesses, he is now getting cash and favors from foreign governments, through guests and events at his hotels, leases in his buildings, and valuable real estate deals abroad. Trump does business with countries like China, India, Indonesia and the Philippines, and now that he is President, his company’s acceptance of any benefits from the governments of those countries violates the Constitution. When Trump the president sits down to negotiate trade deals with these countries, the American people will have no way of knowing whether he will also be thinking about the profits of Trump the businessman.

“President Trump has made his slogan ‘America First,’” said Bookbinder. “So you would think he would want to strictly follow the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, since it was written to ensure our government officials are thinking of Americans first, and not foreign governments.”

CREW is represented in the case by an all-star team of top constitutional scholars, ethics experts and litigators who have combined to argue 45 cases before the Supreme Court. The lawyers on the case include CREW’s board chair and vice-chair Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyers for the last two presidents, Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence H. Tribe and Zephyr Teachout, and Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler PLLC.

I don't know how this will play out, but I think it needed to be filed because this is a question that has never been answered before. Whether or not you think Trump is violating the Constitution, it's good to have the question answered through the judicial system.

[BmorePat87]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/22/511103785/trump-is-yet-to-sever-ties-with-his-business-despite-promises-to-do-so-report-sa?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170122

He hasn't even filed the paperwork to hand over the business to his kids.

[CageTheBengal]

There are so many things wrong with Trump being president but this has to be in the top 2.

Trump a man who has shown no devotion to anything in his life other than his own wealth and his ego is all of a sudden going to play humble servant to the American people?

[*Nately120*]

(01-23-2017, 01:32 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: There are so many things wrong with Trump being president but this has to be in the top 2.

Trump a man who has shown no devotion to anything in his life other than his own wealth and his ego is all of a sudden going to play humble servant to the American people?

I think his supporters got the idea that a lying cheating selfish ass would be a benefit if he were "on your side."  The qualities that make a man defraud people, evade paying taxes, wantonly break rules, and/or just grab and take whatever he wanted could be harnessed to improve America and beat the rest of the world into a proverbial corner.

It sort of reminds me of battered women liking to be with dangerous and intimidating men because they will "protect them."  Maybe this is the fault of TV shows like Dexter where bad people are used for good, or something.  Interesting stuff, if nothing else.

[Bengalzona]

I don't think this thing has legs. It will be tough to prove based upon what they are trying to stick him with.

It would be far better for Congress and/or the Justice Department to step-in and lean on him, IMO. That is part of what they are there for, right?

[Millhouse]

I was always under the impression that a sitting President couldn't be sued while in office? Is that true or not? (honest question, not being snarky as it can be hard to tell in here at times)

[Benton]

(01-23-2017, 11:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I was always under the impression that a sitting President couldn't be sued while in office? Is that true or not? (honest question, not being snarky as it can be hard to tell in here at times)

Clinton had a civil suit brought against him during his time in the Oral Office. To the best of my knowledge a criminal charge hasn't been filed against a sitting president. And, it should be noted, no criminal charges have been filed against Trump, either.

[Belsnickel]

(01-24-2017, 01:24 AM)Benton Wrote: Clinton had a civil suit brought against him during his time in the Oral Office. To the best of my knowledge a criminal charge hasn't been filed against a sitting president. And, it should be noted, no criminal charges have been filed against Trump, either.

Obama did, too. Or maybe Boehner dropped it, I can't remember the details now.

Regardless, the concept being thought of here is known as sovereign immunity. The sovereign, in the case of the US, is the federal government. A suit can be brought against an official because they are not the government/sovereign. So, for instance, in this scenario the case is brought against President Donald J. Trump, but it is not brought against the Office of the President of the United States. There is a difference there that distinguishes whether the suit would fall under sovereign immunity or not.

Now, the government can waive sovereign immunity. Much like executive privilege, sometimes it is more politically advantageous to do so and have the battle fought in the courts where all is laid out on the table. But this case would not fall under sovereign immunity, anyway.

[xxlt]

(01-23-2017, 11:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, so it wasn't on Friday, like I had expected. But it is filed today.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/crew-sues-trump-emoluments/


I don't know how this will play out, but I think it needed to be filed because this is a question that has never been answered before. Whether or not you think Trump is violating the Constitution, it's good to have the question answered through the judicial system.

Ha ha, I heard this the other day and thought you were pretty prescient. It does need resolution - I just hope it isn't 6 months before it is even docketed because I know Trump's lawyers will drag it out as far as possible. It could be year 4 or his term or beyond if they have their way and still in preliminary hearing stage.

[Benton]

(01-24-2017, 10:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Obama did, too. Or maybe Boehner dropped it, I can't remember the details now.

Regardless, the concept being thought of here is known as sovereign immunity. The sovereign, in the case of the US, is the federal government. A suit can be brought against an official because they are not the government/sovereign. So, for instance, in this scenario the case is brought against President Donald J. Trump, but it is not brought against the Office of the President of the United States. There is a difference there that distinguishes whether the suit would fall under sovereign immunity or not.

Now, the government can waive sovereign immunity. Much like executive privilege, sometimes it is more politically advantageous to do so and have the battle fought in the courts where all is laid out on the table. But this case would not fall under sovereign immunity, anyway.

Completely forgot about that. Sued on behalf of Congress over not implementing Obamacare. Or something along those lines. Googled it and nothing came up outside of 2015 when courts agreed to hear the suit.

And correct on the rest. The courts already decided you can't sue the president for damages caused by being president (if he bombs your country or his motorcade makes you lose business, that's part of it). But you can still sue the guy for actions outside of those created by the office. I imagine, though, that if the case goes before a judge, his attorney will argue sovereign immunity extends to emoluments. Which should be enough to take it to the SCOTUS, which helps keep the issue tabled long enough to get through a first term.

[Belsnickel]

(01-24-2017, 11:46 AM)Benton Wrote: Completely forgot about that. Sued on behalf of Congress over not implementing Obamacare. Or something along those lines. Googled it and nothing came up outside of 2015 when courts agreed to hear the suit.

And correct on the rest. The courts already decided you can't sue the president for damages caused by being president (if he bombs your country or his motorcade makes you lose business, that's part of it). But you can still sue the guy for actions outside of those created by the office. I imagine, though, that if the case goes before a judge, his attorney will argue sovereign immunity extends to emoluments. Which should be enough to take it to the SCOTUS, which helps keep the issue tabled long enough to get through a first term.

I figured you knew all that (though in truth I keep trying to think of the name of the concept and had to do searches for other terms I knew were related to it) but I just like to lay out the civics lessons, sometimes. A better informed public is a good thing.

As for the SCOTUS thing, it could be fast-tracked. The Trump team will fight that tooth and nail, but it could happen. I can see pros and cons to it taking a while, or to it going quickly. Honestly, I am more concerned about the precedent. I've said before that since our courts can only work on justiciable questions, and not hypotheticals, the emoluments clause (really clauses, because there are two different mentions of it, one regarding states and the other regarding foreign powers) has never been ruled on, really. So getting a good legal guideline on this, especially when the clause was written at a time when global trade took months, if not years, compared to the instantaneous monetary transactions of today's world is important, IMHO.

[*bfine32*]

He sure is shady

[Vas Deferens]

(01-24-2017, 12:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So getting a good legal guideline on this, especially when the clause was written at a time when global trade took months, if not years, compared to the instantaneous monetary transactions of today's world is important, IMHO.

Great point Matt