court

Twenty-nine Senate Democrats tried to convince the Supreme Court to take up a case against President Donald Trump claiming he violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.

Supreme Court Shuts Democrats Down

The clause prohibits self-dealing by federal officeholders. However, on Tuesday the Supreme Court shot down the Democrats’ bogus claims.

The senators asked the court to look over a February ruling by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which basically alleged that the lawmakers did not have the legal right to sue the president.

In the brief from the senators, they say President Trump still has ownership of companies that do business with foreign governments that are accepting “unauthorized financial benefits from foreign states.” The Democrats argued that this was in violation of constitutional restrictions.

Didn’t Sway Enough Judges

The leftist senators needed to get support from four justices which they did not get.

“The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the judges wrote.

“But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate.”

Trump Administration Fighting Back Against other Suits

The Trump administration is fighting back against the claims and has asked the Supreme Court to look into two other emoluments lawsuits against the president.

This was brought on by two lower courts decided that suits brought by the liberal nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the attorneys general for Washington, D.C., and Maryland could move forward.

The senator’s lawsuit that the Supreme Court ruled against on Tuesday had problems in the lower courts because when they filed it in June 2017, Democrats did not represent the majority of either congressional chamber, the Hill reports.

Democrat politicians have used every chance they get to try and oust President Trump despite having no legal grounds to do so.

2 Comments

  1. It’s hard to understand exactly what the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Clearly, the Constitution requires that a president can’t accept gifts from foreign governments (I think it is an attempt to disallow a foreign government from buying favors from the president). George Washington, I’ve read, was a tobacco grower and often sold his product to foreign entities and was also attacked by other politicians for accepting emoluments ans, the ruling was made that if a service or product was offered and the price was consistent with the going price, that there was no crime. Trump has turned his properties over to his kids and (theoretically) he has nothing to do with it now-even so, he does offer a service and the foreign governments pay whatever everyone else does. He should be good.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here