Trump moves to dismiss congressional Emoluments Clause lawsuit

[babylonsister]

Trump moves to dismiss congressional Emoluments Clause lawsuit
By Max Greenwood - 09/15/17 08:44 PM EDT


President Trump has moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by more than 200 Democratic lawmakers alleging that the president has violated a constitutional prohibition on taking gifts from foreign governments.

In a filing in D.C. District Court on Friday first highlighted by BuzzFeed News, government attorneys accused lawmakers of trying to circumvent the legislative process by turning to the courts because of their inability to pass legislation declaring Trump in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which bars the president from accepting gifts or other benefits from foreign leaders.

"None of the bills has come to a vote, nor has the President done anything to prevent Congress from holding a vote," the motion to dismiss reads.

"Plaintiffs could not convince their own colleagues in Congress to take the actions they desired, and now seek the aid of the Judiciary to circumvent the legislative process prescribed by the Constitution."

The lawyers urged the court to dismiss the case "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim."

Some 200 House and Senate Democrats filed the lawsuit in June contending that by not divesting himself from his business interests, Trump stands in violation of the Emoluments Clause.

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/350970-trump-moves-to-dismiss-congressional-emoluments-clause-lawsuit

[greeny2323]

1. Fascinating

It's fascinating the defense isn't, "I'm not violating the emoluments clause."

[babylonsister]

2. That would be a blatant lie, but I suppose he could try it. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Wait. Congress is supposed to determine if the Constitution is being violated?

Thought federal courts determined that.

[Raine1967]

9. It's both.

One is constitutional the other is political.


now we wait for the storm.

[Docreed2003]

4. "I'm not saying I broke any laws...

But if I did, surely all of congress would be on board with this!"

This fucker is just rubbing our noses in it at this point!

[Takket]

5. "pass legislation declaring Trump in violation of the Emoluments Clause"

WHAT????????? That sentence is complete nonsense. Congress does not declare the Constitution has been violated by "passing legislation". That's what the Courts are for.

[babylonsister]

6. Does not say much about his legal team, does it. nt

[gratuitous]

7. I think this is a case of first impression

"First impression" means this particular legal question has never been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. The first hurdle for any lawsuit of this nature is "standing": That is, are the people bringing the suit suffering some legally cognizable harm or have a legal interest in the subject of the lawsuit? Because the suit has been brought under the emoluments clause of the Constitution, rather than a section of the United States Code, the matter of jurisdiction can be tricky.

So first off, Trump's lawyers are arguing that the legislators do not have the standing to sue the executive. I'm not sure that's going to fly, but it's a standard motion to bring. Is the federal court the place to bring such a suit? I'm not sure there's any other suitable or logical venue to decide such a constitutional question. The argument that holding the president accountable to the Constitution must be done only through legislation doesn't impress me, but it might impress a federal judge. There has, to this time in our republic, been no need to pass any further legislation reinforcing the plain language of the Constitution.

The founding fathers probably figured their simple declaration was sufficient to ward off an executive trying to profit off of the office of the president, and so it was for more than 225 years. Then along came Donald fucking Trump, who recognizes no law but his own good pleasure. I hope the courts strip him of every penny.

[al bupp]

8. Well put /nt