Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Appeals court dismisses 'emoluments' lawsuit involving President Trump's D.C. hotel [View all]unblock
(52,196 posts)16. The problem with the "no standing" argument is
Ok, if they don't have standing, then who does?
If the emoluments clause is in the constitution, it's meant to be enforced somehow. They wouldn't have put it in there if it could be ignored because no one has standing.
It's not unreasonable for the courts to take a view on who has standing, but it is unreasonable to take a view that no one has standing.
So eventually the courts will have to clarify who can enforce the emoluments clause. And it also doesn't make sense for it to only be through impeachment because it then becomes useless as a separate clause.
Of course, by then, Donald fraud's term will be over and republicans will demand detailed accounting of every nickel the next democratic president receives....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
55 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Appeals court dismisses 'emoluments' lawsuit involving President Trump's D.C. hotel [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2019
OP
They didn't rule on the substance, only on whether these plaintiffs had standing to sue.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jul 2019
#51
No. There are a ton of cases holding that a claim of generalized injuries
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jul 2019
#52
If the DAs of 2 States he's collecting bribes from don't have standing who would?
Farmer-Rick
Jul 2019
#3
I think that most people on DU understand by now the Senate's role in any impeachment and
in2herbs
Jul 2019
#23
Yes. Trump profiting off the hotel is scummy, shady, and distasteful, but its legal. nt
SylviaD
Jul 2019
#50
So, who exactly DOES have standing to enforce the emoluments clause?
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Jul 2019
#13
The elected office of the Attorney General of D.C. should be considered to have standing
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2019
#19
Financial injury (including security costs among other things) for the city
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2019
#43
Those are precisely the types of injuries the court found didn't confer standing
onenote
Jul 2019
#44
The court found that protection of competition was not in the "zone of interests" that the clause is
onenote
Jul 2019
#46
I was a lawyer who started out as a law clerk for a circuit judge.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Jul 2019
#54
Again, members of Congress have brought their own suit and were found to have standing
onenote
Jul 2019
#18
but it's a basic principal of constitutional interpretation that clauses were written for a reason.
unblock
Jul 2019
#35
it is enforceable by those who have standing, may be, if it were clear who has that beyond Congress.
Thomas Hurt
Jul 2019
#25
The 4th Circuit's dismissal of this suit leaves two other Emoluments Clause suits in place,...
mahatmakanejeeves
Jul 2019
#37