Liberal slanted jurists are a bane to the system. God is with Trump.
Nothing changed in this from the time when this nonsense was dismissed in the USD.
Background:
Emolument: a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office:
Constitution Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8
Text. As explained, the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause (also known as the Emoluments Clause, Gifts Clause, Foreign Gifts Clause, and Foreign Titles Clause) was modeled on its Articles of Confederation predecessor. The original Articles of Confederation provision provided:
[N]or shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Whereas the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause now provides:
[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [i.e., the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Thus, the modern Foreign Emoluments Clause’s text departed from its Confederation-era predecessor in two distinct ways. First, the modern Foreign Emoluments Clause, unlike its predecessor, expressly permitted Officers . . . under the United States to accept gifts from foreign governments if those officers had the consent of Congress. Some believe that this subclause introduced a substantive change, but others believe that it merely codified the prior practice of the Articles Congress.
Second, the Articles of Confederation provision applied both to Offices of profit or trust under the United States and also to Offices of profit or trust under . . . any . . . State, whereas the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause only applies to Offices of Profit or Trust under them, i.e., under the United States. The prevailing view is that the modern Foreign Emoluments Clause, unlike its Articles predecessor, does not reach state positions. Thus, some would argue that the modern Foreign Emoluments Clause has a somewhat more limited bite or scope than its Confederation-era predecessor.
- Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause
A federal court says challengers lack standing, but also declares the issue is best left to Congress.
12/21/17
"U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels
ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.
Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts."
Politico - known for liberal bias of all things.
All three of the lawsuits filed against Trump alleging emoluments violations face uphill battles in court.
by Jessica Levinson /
Jan.07.2018 /