D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

a reply to: introvert

Everything? This is the sort of hyperbole and dramatics that can be exhausting when trying to have a logical discussion. 

Might as well be everything. Regardless if it was or not, my point still stands and you'd be naive to disagree.

Also, you did not address the point I made. Instead of addressing the issue presented, they whine about whiny liberals. All because they don't like the topic or the potential consequences of it. 

What point where you trying to make?

Much like what you are doing here. You're deflecting to the Left. 

Hey don't shoot the messenger.

Ya, what about it? Need to borrow a pitchfork?

Nah, those are for the anti-Trumpers

originally posted by: mikell
Going to be lots of time and money for something without a punishment. Mid terms it's going to be HOW MUCH MONEY DID THEY WASTE!!!!

The midterms may very well be the consequences... Democrats were already in trouble with the midterms due to the number of seats they control up for grabs. A chunk of those seats are in states that went for Trump. If the democrats push this with nothing resulting other than leaks and baseless attacks they could sink themselves even more.

The DNC needs new leadership and a new message.. The old guards business as usual and the mindset democrats are fine with the status quo is detrimental.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Republicans have lost all moral authority. The Constitution is only a document to use when Republicans wants to purge.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Just the dogma prone President Trump cultists who have lost moral authority. I wouldn't say it's all republicans. My personal opinion is that by making the broad sweeping statements about any group is precisely what has gotten us to this point.

a reply to: tadaman

Its the boy who cried impeachment and secession.

Exactly!

When the reality of such situation transpires, the public will be none the wiser.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
You know the Democrat loons are desperate with they try invoking the Constitution as a steadfast charter instead of a 'living, breathing, dynamic document."

With respect to the above bolded: what?! We agree to be governed on a continually changing basis? Just the fact that you believe that is scary.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I laugh at those calling out "Oh, those whining Dems again!".

Its almost like the gobby "patriot" hypocrites do not understand their own constitution. Mind you, the ability to do so does also require an attention span longer than six seconds, and the ability to read... so I can see where their misunderstanding might have come in.

Yes yes, the self professed enlightened one that see's itself above the masses, laughing at ants and their musings, lmfao smh.

I'm guessing your attention span is longer then six seconds and have the unique ability to read, right? Bravo, you're a shiny example of British exceptionalism of the highest degree, sir knight, TrueBrit.

In that regard, you lack comprehension and the ability to think critically, as we have many esteemed and knowledgeable members who think highly of a Trump Presidency.

Pssst, your bias is showing, oh wise one.

a reply to: network dude

So this lawsuit is about the emoluments clause. The article is pretty clear about that. If you don't understand that, then that is a problem with your own reading comprehension.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The emoluments clause says no government officer may receive emoluments from foreign governments without approval of congress. It doesn't say a government officer cannot own and operate a business and receive payments from foreign citizens. Such a measure would be a gross violation of basic human rights and freedoms. Supreme Court would never allow such as measure. George Washington was the first businessman president.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude
I'm not telling you to support my side. I'm telling you not to jump to conclusion and say this investigation won't go anywhere. There is a HUGE world of positions to take on an argument outside of two sides you know?

Legally it will go no where. There is no legal basis the president doesn't have to do anything with a business he owns. And he is not required to turn over his tax returns. Though I admit I'd like to see it there's no legal right to do so.

a reply to: allsee4eye

How about where you point out where Congress has approved these deals?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude
I'm not telling you to support my side. I'm telling you not to jump to conclusion and say this investigation won't go anywhere. There is a HUGE world of positions to take on an argument outside of two sides you know?

Legally it will go no where.

Really? Since when were you a SCOTUS justice?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Approval may be explicit or implicit. In any event, there is no evidence Trump has received emoluments from foreign governments. The only times he meets foreign leaders such as Teresa May and Abe and Merkel are at the White House or at Mar a Lago where journalists are around so it's unlikely these foreign leaders were able to stuff money into his pockets during their times together.

a reply to: Arnie123

I made no comment about the Trump Presidency.

I made a comment about whether or not the behaviour of the President is constitutional, and as it happens, many, MANY of Trumps most ardent fans on this site, can only reliably remember the vague framework of the second amendment to the constitution. In fact, I have had to educate some of the American members here on the finer points and wording of the document entire, as well as many of the foundational principles contained therein, on quite a number of occasions. I can assure you, there are few people as perturbed by the idea that I know more of the constitution than some Americans, as I am. It worries me intensely.

I think it is also worth pointing out, that some of the most vocal Trump supporters on this site most CERTAINLY fall into the "I only read the second, and the date stamp on my rifle... does that count?" sector.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Approval may be explicit or implicit.

You just made that up. This is the text in full:

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.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

So this lawsuit is about the emoluments clause. The article is pretty clear about that. If you don't understand that, then that is a problem with your own reading comprehension.

This sure is a funny read:

3.) Will the lawsuit work? That depends on what you mean by “work.” Several legal experts have said they doubt a federal judge would give the watchdog group a full victory. One big question: Does the watchdog group even have “standing” to sue Trump in the first place? “Just complaining about bad government does not give rise to standing — or you or I would have standing to challenge just about anything that goes on.” said Erik Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. “And the system just couldn’t work.” To have standing to sue, the watchdog group must show evidence it was harmed by Trump’s actions. The group says it can. The logic: Its workload has increased because Trump has given them new concerns to investigate.

link

Where is that gif for grasping at straws?

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just keep whining. You'll show America what true losers look like.
.......Oh...wait....you showed them that in the elections.

I find it interesting that you point out what true losers look like by reaffirming that Donald Trump won that election

Where is the evidence Trump has accepted emoluments from foreign governments? Did Teresa May stuff money into his pockets when she came to the White House? Did Trudeau? Did Abe? Did Netanyahu? Did Merkel?

a reply to: network dude

More validation sources for you? This time an article that is 6 months old? But hey it's WaPo right? You think that it's a source I would approve of so that excuses your quote mining and out of date reporting. You know that Maryland is arguing special standing right?

The suit by D.C. and Maryland says the two jurisdictions are faced with an “intolerable dilemma”: to either go along with the Trump Organization getting special treatment, including possible lost local revenue, or “deny such requests and be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis states and other government entities that have granted or will agree to such concessions.”

The District and Maryland file the suit at great peril, Racine and Frosh allege, because the two have a disproportionately large percentage of federal workers and could be acutely affected by federal budget cuts that Trump could seek as retribution.

But Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As one of the original states that approved the Constitution, Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that had required its governors not to take any gifts from foreign governments or other states.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The emoluments clause says no government officer may receive emoluments from foreign governments without approval of congress. It doesn't say a government officer cannot own and operate a business and receive payments from foreign citizens. Such a measure would be a gross violation of basic human rights and freedoms. Supreme Court would never allow such as measure. George Washington was the first businessman president.

The founding fathers never meant for someone becoming president to give up there means if making money. It was expected they would return to it after there term. Most of the presidents early on had plantations and relied on sales and even say Jefferson traded overseas. Trump businesses would only be illegal if they didn't provide a service. And even than that's iffy because now we have something called foundations. These operate with foreign aid and no product.

Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.