Jump to content

User:Dakleman/Comparison of Claims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Dakleman

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dakleman (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 1 July 2017 (→Reading List: Added two legal blogs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comparison of Claims in Lawsuits alleging violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution is a breakdown of the complaints made against Donald Trump to identify commonalities traced to primary and secondary sources for a future WikiProject on these lawsuits or related legal issues. Users are free to edit, but I ask for your patience until 7 years ago enforcing Wikipedia is an encyclopedia until we can figure out what of this (if any) can be developed well enough to add to/form Articles.


Lawsuits alleging Trump's actions violate of the Emoluments Clause

Main article: List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump § Lawsuits arising out of Trump's actions as president
  • CREW v. Trump
    • Case in Main
      • Original Complaint[1]
      • First Amended Complaint[2]
      • Second Amended Complaint[3]
      • Amici Briefs[4][5]
      • (Pending) Response
      • Reply to Response
    • Motion to Dismiss
      • For[6]
      • (Pending) Against
      • Rebuttal
    • Timeline
  • D.C. and Maryland v. Trump
    • Case in Main
      • Original Complaint[16]
      • (Pending) Amici Breifs
      • (Pending) Response
      • Reply to Response
    • (Pending) Motion to Dismiss
      • For
      • Against
      • Rebuttal
    • Timeline
  • Blumenthal v. Trump
    • Case in Main
      • Original Complaint[21]
        • OCp36 Summary of argument [22]
        • OC54 Lawyers for Plaintiff[23]
      • (Pending) Amici Breifs
      • (Pending) Response
      • Reply to Response
    • (Pending) Motion to Dismiss
      • For
      • Against
      • Rebuttal
    • Appearances
    • Timeline

Law Citations

Case Law

  • Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n [29][30]

Constitution

Statues

Scholarly Works

Other Authorities

Recent News For Judicial Notice

Claims

Claims of type
CREW v. Trump DC & MD v. Trump Blumenthal v. Trump Claim
Second Amended Complaint Motion to Dismiss Amicus Brief Response Reply Complaint Response Reply Complaint Response Reply
¶1[32] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Trump's "business interests as vast, complicated, and secret"
¶1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Trump's "business interests are creating countless conflicts of interest"
¶1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Trump's "business interests are creating ... unprecedented influence by foreign governments"
¶1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Trump's "business interests ... result in ... violations of ... the “Foreign Emoluments Clause,”"
¶1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Trump's "business interests ... result in ... violations of ... the “Domestic Emoluments Clause,”"
¶2[32] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Foreign Emoluments Clause requires consent of Congress when accepting foreign presents or emoluments
¶2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "Congress has not consented to Defendant’s receipt of the presents or emoluments at issue"
¶3[32] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Trump's violations of Foreign Emoluments Clause "pose a grave threat to the United States and its citizens"
¶3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Text of Foreign Emoluments Clause forbid Trump's behavior
¶3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Purpose of Foreign Emoluments Clause forbid Trump's behavior
¶4[35] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Foreign Emoluments Clause is "a strict prophylactic rule" against historical examples of corruption
¶5[35] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Domestic Emoluments Clause forbids "any other Emolument" from United States or any of the 50 states

See Also

References

  1. ^ Original Complaint, Docket 1
  2. ^ First Amended Complaint, Docket 22
  3. ^ Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28
  4. ^ Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Docket 37, Attachment 1
  5. ^ Order, Docket 39
  6. ^ Memorandum in support of motion to Dismiss, Docket 35
  7. ^ Eric Lipton; Adam Liptak (January 22, 2017), Foreign Payments to Trump Firms Violate Constitution, Suit Will Claim, Washington, DC, retrieved January 22, 2017{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  8. ^ Fahrenthold, David A.; O'Connell, Jonathan (January 22, 2017). "Liberal watchdog group sues Trump, alleging he violated constitutional ban". The Washington Post.
  9. ^ David A. Fahrenthold; Jonathan O'Connell (January 23, 2017). "What is the 'Emoluments Clause'? Does it apply to President Trump?". The Washington Post.
  10. ^ "Lawsuit accusing Trump of violating the Constitution just expanded". Reuters. 2017-04-18. Archived from the original on 2017-04-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ LaFraniere, Sharon (2017-04-18). "Watchdog Group Expands Lawsuit Against Trump". New York Times. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  12. ^ "CREW v. Trump Adds New Plaintiff" (Press release). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-06-10.
  13. ^ LaFraniere, Sharon (2017-06-09). "Justice Dept. Wants Lawsuit Against President Trump Thrown Out". New York Times. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  14. ^ Geewax, Marilyn (2017-06-09). "Trump Administration Calls For Lawsuit About His Businesses To Be Dismissed". NPR. Retrieved 2017-06-10.
  15. ^ Smith, Allan (2017-06-10). "Justice Department argues it's fine for Trump to take payments from foreign governments, citing George Washington". Business Insider. Retrieved 2017-06-10.
  16. ^ Complaint, Docket 1
  17. ^ Davis, Aaron C.; Tumulty, Karen (2017-06-12). "D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump 'flagrantly violating' emoluments clause". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  18. ^ LaFrainere, Sharon (June 12, 2017). "Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump Over His Private Businesses". The New York Times. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  19. ^ Davis, Aaron C. (June 12, 2017). "D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  20. ^ Gambino, Lauren (June 12, 2017). "'Unprecedented violations': states sue Trump for not separating business ties". The Guardian. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  21. ^ Complaint, Docket 1
  22. ^ Complaint, Docket 1, p. 36
  23. ^ Complaint, Docket 1, p. 54
  24. ^ Notice of Appearance, Docket 2
  25. ^ Notice of Appearance, Docket 3
  26. ^ Notice of Appearance, Docket 4
  27. ^ "Trump and the Foreign Emoluments Clause" (Press release). Constitutional Accountability Center. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  28. ^ Bykowicz, Julie (June 14, 2017). "Democrats in Congress are the latest to sue President Trump". Boston Globe. Associated Press. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  29. ^ Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353, 362 (2009) (“State political subdivisions are “merely ... department[s] of the State...””)
  30. ^ a b Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 14
  31. ^ United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, no person holding any office of profit or trust under [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.
  32. ^ a b c d e Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 1
  33. ^ United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, [The President of the United States] shall not receive within [the Period for which he shall have been elected] any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
  34. ^ Norman L. Eisen; Richard Painter; Laurence H. Tribe (Dec 16, 2016). "The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, and Application to Donald J. Trump".
  35. ^ a b c d Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 2
  36. ^ Articles of Confederation, Article 6, Section 1, nor 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
  37. ^ Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 11
  38. ^ Max Farrand, ed. (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. 389. [Foreign Emoluments Clause was added at request of Charles Pinckney who] urged the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U. S. independent of external influence.
  39. ^ a b Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 12
  40. ^ Max Farrand, ed. (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Vol. 3. New Haven: Yale University Press. 327. [Edmund Jennings Randolph believed it] was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states
  41. ^ Hamilton, Alexander (May 28, 1788), "The Judiciary Department", The Federalist, no. 78, [According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, Congress and the states] can neither weaken [the President's] fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice.
  42. ^ Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 3
  43. ^ "Major James D. Dunn, B-251084", Comptroller General, *3, Oct 12, 1993, Foreign governmental influence can just as readily occur whether a member is employed by local government within a foreign country or by the national government of the country. For this reason, we believe that the term 'foreign State' should be interpreted to include local governmental units within a foreign country as well as the national government itself.
  44. ^ a b c Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 13
  45. ^ "Applicability of Emoluments Clause to Employment of Government Employees by Foreign Public Universities" (PDF), Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 18, pp. 13–22, 1994, Those who hold offices under the United States must give the government their unclouded judgment and their uncompromised loyalty. That judgment might be biased, and that loyalty divided, if they received financial benefits from a foreign government.
  46. ^ "Applicability of the Emoluments Clause and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act to the President's Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize" (PDF), Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 33, 7, 2009
  47. ^ "Applicability of the Emoluments Clause and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act to the President's Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize" (PDF), Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 33, 8, 2009
  48. ^ Marilyn Geewax; Maria Hollenhorst (Dec 5, 2016), Trump’s Businesses And Potential Conflicts: Sorting It Out, NPR, 7:00 AM
  49. ^ U.S. Office of Government Ethics (May 16, 2016), Donald J. Trump 2016 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (PDF)
  50. ^ a b c Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28, p. 15
  51. ^ "Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video", N.Y. Times, Jan 11, 2017
  52. ^ David Kravitz; Al Shaw (Apr 4, 2017), Trump Lawyer Confirms President Can Pull Money From His Businesses Whenever He Wants, ProPublica, 5:53 PM

Reading List

  • Dorf on Law (emoluments) Dec 19, 2016 - Jun 26, 2017
  • Take Care Blog (emoluments) Mar 24, 2017 - Jun 26, 2017
  • "Emoluments Lawsuit Is Warranted", The Courant, Jun 18, 2017, The lawsuit doesn't specifically accuse Mr. Trump of corruption, but it claims that Congress was deprived of its constitutional right to decide whether the Trump Organization could receive money from those foreign sources, because Mr. Trump did not clear the payments with them first. "An officeholder ... would not be the sole judge of his own integrity," the lawsuit states.
  • Gretchen Frazee (Jun 22, 2017), "How the emoluments clause is being used to sue Trump", PBS Newshour, Tillman goes further than many other scholars and also argues that the emoluments clause does not apply to the president because it is derived from a British law that refers to appointed rather than elected officials. The Department of Justice did not argue this point in its written defense.
  • John Mikhail; Trevor Burrus (Jun 22, 2017), "A law professor and CATO Institute fellow tell us if President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause", WGN Radio (Radio Debate), Moderated by John Williams
  • Mike DeBonis (Jun 23, 2017), "On Trump and Russia, Oversight Chair Trey Gowdy says he will stay in his lane", Washington Post, Gowdy said there were Trump-related matters that he did see falling within the Oversight panel's purview — procedures for issuance of security clearances, for instance, and the constitutional prohibition on accepting "emoluments" from foreign benefactors. ... With regard to the emoluments question, Gowdy said he was primarily interested in plumbing the legal implications of the constitutional clause, which maintains that federal officials must not "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
    "The first challenge to me is understanding the parameters, how has it historically been applied, and then from that, you can determine whether or not you think there's been a breach," he said.
    Gowdy suggested he would like to see Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional law professor, and a Republican counterpart on the committee explore the question.
  • Erwin Chemerinsky (Jun 26, 2017), "Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right", Los Angeles Times, Trump's position is that the federal courts can hear none of these suits because no one has "standing" to sue him for these constitutional violations. But that can't be right: It cannot be that the president can violate the Constitution with impunity and no court has the authority to hold him accountable. ... The president's position is that none of these plaintiffs fits the legal criteria of "standing" — that is, they can't claim to have been personally injured so they cannot sue. But it is hard to imagine who would have standing if not these plaintiffs. Accepting Trump's argument would effectively mean that no one would ever be able to sue over violations of the emoluments clauses.
  • Paul Barrett; Dune Lawrence (Jun 27, 2017), "The Litigation Storm Around President Trump", Bloomberg Businessweek, Liberal activists are thrilled to be suing President Donald Trump. "The reason you're seeing a proliferation of lawsuits against President Trump is that he brought his lifelong contempt for the rule of law with him to the Oval Office," says Norman Eisen, the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama.
    Eisen now heads a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which—along with Democratic members of Congress, the state of Maryland, and the District of Columbia—are suing Trump for violating the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause. That long-dormant anti-corruption provision forbids public officials from accepting payments from foreign governments. The suits accuse Trump of profiting from private businesses such as his Washington hotel, which has been patronized by officials from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries.
  • William J. Watkins Jr. (Jun 27, 2017), "The Emoluments of Sore Losers", National Review, In Hoyt v. United States (1850), the U.S. Supreme Court defined emolument as "embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office." Accordingly, President Trump argues that "emolument" must be understood as a prohibited benefit arising from the services a federal officer provides to a foreign power, either on account of his office (making a decision favorable to a foreign government for pay) or as an employee/agent of the foreign power. He further argues that the foreign-emoluments clause does not prohibit his companies from engaging in market transactions on the same terms as any other citizen or private business.
    • Charles P. Pierce (Jun 29, 2017), "Conservatives Are Now Defending Trump, Inc., Because Why Not?", Esquire, The essay by one William J. Watkins, Jr., seeks to pooh-pooh the president*'s obvious attempts to monetize his office in apparent violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which is the subject of current legal action. He begins, however, by demonstrating a charming belief in the essential good faith of a guy who regularly stiffed glaziers and masons who couldn't afford to sue him.
  • John McColgan (Jun 28, 2017), "Political Philosophy:'Emolument' debate heating up", Wallowa County Cheitain, Less than six months into his presidency, examples already abound of instances where Trump could be in violation of the Constitution's emoluments prohibitions. Until recently, the First Lady resided at Trump Towers in New York, which necessitated that the Secret Service pay with our tax dollars directly into Trump's pocket for the rental of two floors there. And on many weekends since his election, Trump has brought his entire publicly paid entourage, along with national media and international VIPs vying for his attention and favor, to stay at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
    The growing appearance of the quid pro quo is also troubling. The head of China's government visited Trump in Florida a few weeks after China had announced it had awarded Trump 38 trademarks, which was an extremely lucrative and timely advance of Trump's business interests in that market.
  • Joy Shrum (Jun 28, 2017), "State AG explains Trump lawsuit", TheBayNet.com, Attorney General Frosh alleges President Trump's wide-ranging business entanglements violate the Constitution's Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. "Elected leaders must serve the people, and not their personal financial interests. That is the indispensable foundation of a democracy. We cannot treat a president's ongoing violations of the Constitution and disregard for the rights of the American people as the new and acceptable status quo. The president, above all other elected officials, must have on the interests of Americans at the heart of every decision."
  • Max Greenwood (Jun 28, 2017), "Obama ethics czar: Trump fundraiser at his DC hotel 'illegal'", The Hill, Eisen argued that by allowing Trump to hold a fundraising event for his personal reelection campaign at the hotel, he is violating both the emoluments clause and the terms of his real estate company's lease with the federal government.
    Trump's D.C. hotel has been a source of controversy for the president in the past, particularly over whether foreign officials and dignitaries could patronize the hotel to curry favor in Trump's White House.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Dakleman/Comparison_of_Claims&oldid=788521678"