Friday, January 05, 2024

Tiptoeing Through The Headlines

So why does it feel like Joe Biden is unemployed? AP wants to know if unemployment could increase later. Which they were elected to solve. But if they did that, what would they complain about? Art. I, sec. 9, clause 8, U.S. Constitution:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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.
Nope, no mention of "profits only" there. Interestingly, this is the annotation for that entry:
For most of its history, courts have rarely substantively analyzed or interpreted the Foreign Emoluments Clause. During the administration of President Donald Trump, however, a number of private parties, state attorneys general, and Members of Congress sued the President based on alleged violations of both the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause (collectively, the Emoluments Clauses). Three major federal lawsuits concerning the Emoluments Clauses were filed against President Trump. Over nearly four years, these cases progressed through the lower federal courts, resulting in the first significant judicial decisions on the Emoluments Clauses. 
In late 2020, the Supreme Court denied review in one of these cases, and—after the end of President Trump’s term in January 2021—instructed two federal appellate courts to vacate their judgments and dismiss the other two cases as moot. As a result, most of the lower court decisions on the Emoluments Clauses have been vacated. In the absence of definitive precedent from the Supreme Court, this section reviews these lower court holdings regarding the meaning and scope of the Emoluments Clauses, although they generally retain at most persuasive, and not precedential, value. 
In the three cases, plaintiffs alleged that President Trump’s retention of certain business and financial interests during his Presidency violated the Emoluments Clauses. For example, because President Trump retained an ownership interest in the Trump International Hotel, plaintiffs alleged he received constitutionally forbidden emoluments when foreign or state governments paid for their officials to stay at the Hotel. In a series of rulings, the lower courts addressed three main issues: (1) who has standing to assert Emoluments Clause violations; (2) whether the President and other elected officials are subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause; and (3) the meaning and scope of the term emolument. 
On the standing-to-sue issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that individual Members of Congress lacked standing to sue based on alleged injuries to the legislature as a whole (namely, the deprivation of an opportunity to vote on whether to consent to the acceptance of foreign emoluments). As to the standing of private individuals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that hospitality-industry plaintiffs had standing based on a theory of competitive harm resulting from the allegedly unlawful acceptance of emoluments. However, a number of judges on the Second Circuit dissented from this holding and the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the decision as moot. 
On the second issue, commentators have debated whether federal elected officials hold an Office of Profit or Trust under the United States are thus subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has developed a body of opinions on the Emoluments Clauses, has opined that the President surely holds an office of profit and trust under the Constitution. In litigation, President Trump did not dispute that he was subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and the only lower court to directly reach the issue agreed with the OLC’s view. However, that holding was subsequently vacated. 
The final litigated issue was the meaning and scope of the term emolument as used in the Emoluments Clauses—particularly, whether it includes private, arm’s-length market transactions. In the litigation, President Trump argued that emoluments included only benefits received by an officeholder in return for official action or through his office or employment. Plaintiffs urged that emoluments be defined more broadly to apply to any profit, gain, or advantage received by the President from a foreign or domestic government. The two district courts that reached the issue adopted the plaintiffs’ broader definition of emolument, although the appellate courts subsequently vacated those decisions.
There isn’t a criminal statute related to the clauses, so it’s long been thought they are only enforceable through impeachment. Without any such enabling legislation, the Supremes really had no choice but to dismiss the pending cases as moot. I am curious as to what relief the lawsuits sought. But it is interesting that Trump left his mark on Constitutional law. Put another way: You really can’t fix stupid. Palate cleanser:
"There is no precedent for the U.S. House of Representatives holding a private citizen in contempt of Congress who has offered to testify in public, under oath, and on a day of the Committee’s choosing. Chairman Comer repeatedly urged Hunter Biden to appear at a Committee hearing, and Hunter Biden agreed. 
“Instead of taking yes for an answer, Chairman Comer has now obstructed his own hapless investigation by denying Hunter Biden the opportunity to answer all the Committee’s questions in front of the American people and the world. 
“Chairman Comer does not want Hunter Biden to testify in public, just as he has refused to publicly release over a dozen interview transcripts, because he wants to keep up the carefully curated distortions, blatant lies, and laughable conspiracy theories that have marked this investigation. However, the facts and the evidence all show no wrongdoing and no impeachable offense by President Biden.”
My uninformed legal opinion is that they’re going to have fun enforcing that subpoena in court; especially against Hunter’s lawyers.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)