Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
CDN

Judge Says Democrats Can Proceed With A Novel Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump

Recommended Posts

By Kevin Daley -

judge_gavel.jpg

http://dailycaller.com/

Democratic lawmakers can proceed with their lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump is violating an anti-corruption provision of the Constitution, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected the president’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to an evidence-gathering phase — called discovery — in which Democrats hope to gain visibility on Trump’s closely held finances.

“This decision is a tremendous victory and vindication of a common-sense reading of the Constitution,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who is the lead plaintiff. “In an extraordinarily well-reasoned opinion, the court soundly rejected the president’s absurd argument that he is above the law.”

“The next step should be discovery and full disclosure of all the documents and evidence relevant to our emoluments claims,” Blumenthal added.

Yet discovery is unlikely to begin in the near future. The Justice Department, which is defending the president in this case, still disputes the plaintiffs’ right to bring the emoluments lawsuit in the first place. Though Sullivan previously ruled the plaintiffs do have the standing to sue, he still has to decide whether to certify that issue for immediate appeal. He ordered both parties to submit legal briefs addressing the certification question Tuesday. The briefing will conclude no later than May 28.

At issue in the dispute is the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, which prohibits officeholders from accepting “Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever” from other countries. Congressional Democrats say the president is violating this provision, since his businesses receive benefits from foreign governments without legislative approval.

The plaintiffs note, for example, that the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments have poured tens of thousands of dollars into Washington’s Trump International Hotel for rooms and events, while the Chinese government has approved 40 trademarks for Trump businesses.

In rebuttal, the Justice Department argues the emoluments clause is not a total prohibition on ordinary transactions with foreign governments. Rather, it forbids a quid pro quo in which a federal officer receives compensation from a foreign power for performing some official act.

To substantiate this reading, the Department claims the term “emoluments” as used in the founding period only referred to official acts, while the founders never suggested that an officer-holder should divest of their commercial interests. Such a demand would have been unusual, since many federal officers were unsalaried during that period, instead receiving compensation through fee systems.

Finally, government lawyers warned an expansive reading of the clause would forbid benign commercial transactions simply because they involve foreign actors, citing international book sales as an example.

Sullivan called the president’s argument “unpersuasive.” He said history shows a broad understanding on the emoluments clause’s reach fulfills its anti-corruption purpose.

“The president’s definition, however, disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the clause; and is contrary to executive branch practice over the course of many years,” Sullivan wrote.

Another emoluments clause dispute is proceeding through the federal courts. The attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C. lodged their own lawsuit against Trump, which is currently pending before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That panel is poised to side with the president.

Trump’s sprawling business interests are beset with legal woes; aside from the emoluments litigation, Trump companies are also fighting subpoenas from congressional committees, and state-level inquiries.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

Judge Says Democrats Can Proceed With A Novel Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more.

View the original full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...