FEDERAL JUDGE ALLOWS EMOLUMENTS CASE AGAINST TRUMP TO PROCEED
- Thread starter calibob
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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.
"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 /
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
"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 /
-
1
- Show all
Yes, I know. That's why the history of a prior lower court pursuit of this issue was posted. A lower court found there was no case. That's the point.
This judge is like unto all the other federal judges in his station who judged other Trump centered issues, like border security and travel bans, is working on behalf of the Left.
This is suppose to distract Trump from the business at hand. It will fail. As it should.
This judge is like unto all the other federal judges in his station who judged other Trump centered issues, like border security and travel bans, is working on behalf of the Left.
This is suppose to distract Trump from the business at hand. It will fail. As it should.
The emoluments clause was meant to prevent officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments. Trump owns a legitimate business and the money he's getting from those foreign governments aren't gifts, they're business transactions.
The news is that the case can now be brought to court.... But it doesn't mean that those bringing the case to court will win.
The news is that the case can now be brought to court.... But it doesn't mean that those bringing the case to court will win.