Reply
Regular Social Butterfly

Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding to Sue Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-emoluments-case-...

 

The suit, which was dismissed on technical grounds, argued the president has violated the Constitution with his businesses, including a hotel popular with foreign officials.

 

A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers' lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution on technical grounds.  In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.


In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers filing the lawsuit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had done so as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling says.

"Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the members — 29 senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments," the decision says.


Democratic senators and House members argued the president frequently violates the rule with his businesses, including a Washington, D.C., hotel that's popular with foreign government officials.  The constitutional clause at issue in the case reads, "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."

 

Trump told reporters on the White House lawn that the suit was "another phony case."

"It was a total win," he said.  Another win just in. Nervous Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress sued me, thrown out. This one unanimous, in the D.C. Circuit.

 

The appeals court's unanimous ruling is based almost entirely on a Supreme Court decision from two decades ago.  In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, allowing the president to cancel individual spending items approved by Congress. It spared the president the need to veto an entire bill because he opposed a single spending provision. Six members of Congress sued, claiming the act gave the president authority he does not have in the Constitution.  The following year, the Supreme Court threw their lawsuit out, ruling that individual members of Congress cannot sue by claiming to represent the interests of Congress as a whole. The appeals court ruling Friday said the present "case is really no different" from that 1997 Supreme Court ruling.

 

In their decision, Judges Karen L. Henderson, David S. Tatel and Thomas B. Griffith suggested the lawmakers press their argument in the court of public opinion.  "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. But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate," said the veteran judges, who were nominated, respectively, by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

 

One of the plaintiffs in the case, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said he was “disappointed" in the outcome, but "a technical dismissal in no way condones President Trump’s continuing violations of the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution.”  Nadler and another plaintiff, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a joint statement that they are evaluating their legal options.

 

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and constitutional expert, tweeted after the ruling, “Individual members of the House and Senate lack standing to sue Trump to stop his Foreign Emoluments Clause violations — but the House could sue for institutional injury. It should now do so.”


The court's decision caps a good week for Trump. On Wednesday, he was acquitted on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress at his Senate impeachment trial.

 

Two other emolument-related cases are still pending in the courts.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
217 Views
11
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

No, no...we understand!

In another questionable ruling, the court does not rule that trump is not guilty of violations, they are claiming that the group filing the complaint does not have legal standing. 

Just for the record, we know that trump is corrupt and making money off of his office...emoluments violations. 

Social Butterfly

"Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

LOL

 

You can't blame the Democrats. They're running around trying to prevent the Senate from censuring Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is just ignorance run rampant. One would think that if there were to be a rational, national debate about the policies of Mr. Trump it would be here, where adults post. Nope, sorry. Take your lack of legal standing elsewither — we're still working on legal understanding here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@LouLit01 wrote:

"Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

LOL

 

You can't blame the Democrats. They're running around trying to prevent the Senate from censuring Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is just ignorance run rampant. One would think that if there were to be a rational, national debate about the policies of Mr. Trump it would be here, where adults post. Nope, sorry. Take your lack of legal standing elsewither — we're still working on legal understanding here.

 

It seemw that you know the particulars of this court case please can you let me know what you think happened.?

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

no name
0 Kudos
348 Views
2
Report
Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

"Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

LOL

 

You can't blame the Democrats. They're running around trying to prevent the Senate from censuring Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is just ignorance run rampant. One would think that if there were to be a rational, national debate about the policies of Mr. Trump it would be here, where adults post. Nope, sorry. Take your lack of legal standing elsewither — we're still working on legal understanding here.

 

It seemw that you know the particulars of this court case please can you let me know what you think happened.?

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Here's what I know:

 

You cannot intelligently discuss a federal appeals court decision with someone who can't tell the difference between legal standing and legal understanding.

 

You cannot intelligently discuss the State of the Union speech with people who think the Senate can censure Nancy Pelosi for ripping up the speech, or, in fact, for any reason at all. Can't be done. Do not come here and tell me the Senate should censure Nancy Pelosi — you're embarrassing yourself and wasting my time.

 

You cannot fight speaking points with facts and logic; as in "witch hunt," "wild goose chase," and, the "Mueller investigation cost the U.S. taxpayer $36 million and found nothing."

 

Folks, a witch hunt is a witch hunt because there's no such thing as a witch! When an investigation finds real, live criminals as the Mueller investigation did, it's not a witch hunt. It's a successful investigation which cost taxpayers next to nothing because of criminal fines.

 

I'm sorry, this place should be well beyond that nonsense and into hard facts and figures demonstrating the premises of an argument. But we can't do that. People try: Charts are posted from credible sources; report's from Trump's government agencies are cited; Politicians' own words are quoted back to them. None of it matters. The next day we're back to basic civics lessons.

 

You know why Trump is president? Because we deserve to have Trump as president.

 

So I laugh. When someone writes: "Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

I laugh. LOL

 

When someone says the Senate should censure Pelosi I laugh. Everytime I hear "witch hunt" I laugh. It's the best thing to do. I'm done tearing my hair out repeating basic, verifiable facts over and over to people who refuse to accept them because they don't want to. I'm going to stick with laughing.

 

Mark 4:3-9

Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@LouLit01 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

"Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

LOL

 

You can't blame the Democrats. They're running around trying to prevent the Senate from censuring Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is just ignorance run rampant. One would think that if there were to be a rational, national debate about the policies of Mr. Trump it would be here, where adults post. Nope, sorry. Take your lack of legal standing elsewither — we're still working on legal understanding here.

 

It seemw that you know the particulars of this court case please can you let me know what you think happened.?

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Here's what I know:

 

You cannot intelligently discuss a federal appeals court decision with someone who can't tell the difference between legal standing and legal understanding.

 

You cannot intelligently discuss the State of the Union speech with people who think the Senate can censure Nancy Pelosi for ripping up the speech, or, in fact, for any reason at all. Can't be done. Do not come here and tell me the Senate should censure Nancy Pelosi — you're embarrassing yourself and wasting my time.

 

You cannot fight speaking points with facts and logic; as in "witch hunt," "wild goose chase," and, the "Mueller investigation cost the U.S. taxpayer $36 million and found nothing."

 

Folks, a witch hunt is a witch hunt because there's no such thing as a witch! When an investigation finds real, live criminals as the Mueller investigation did, it's not a witch hunt. It's a successful investigation which cost taxpayers next to nothing because of criminal fines.

 

I'm sorry, this place should be well beyond that nonsense and into hard facts and figures demonstrating the premises of an argument. But we can't do that. People try: Charts are posted from credible sources; report's from Trump's government agencies are cited; Politicians' own words are quoted back to them. None of it matters. The next day we're back to basic civics lessons.

 

You know why Trump is president? Because we deserve to have Trump as president.

 

So I laugh. When someone writes: "Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

I laugh. LOL

 

When someone says the Senate should censure Pelosi I laugh. Everytime I hear "witch hunt" I laugh. It's the best thing to do. I'm done tearing my hair out repeating basic, verifiable facts over and over to people who refuse to accept them because they don't want to. I'm going to stick with laughing.

 

Mark 4:3-9

Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



@LouLit01 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

"Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

LOL

 

You can't blame the Democrats. They're running around trying to prevent the Senate from censuring Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is just ignorance run rampant. One would think that if there were to be a rational, national debate about the policies of Mr. Trump it would be here, where adults post. Nope, sorry. Take your lack of legal standing elsewither — we're still working on legal understanding here.

 

It seemw that you know the particulars of this court case please can you let me know what you think happened.?

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Here's what I know:

 

You cannot intelligently discuss a federal appeals court decision with someone who can't tell the difference between legal standing and legal understanding.

 

You cannot intelligently discuss the State of the Union speech with people who think the Senate can censure Nancy Pelosi for ripping up the speech, or, in fact, for any reason at all. Can't be done. Do not come here and tell me the Senate should censure Nancy Pelosi — you're embarrassing yourself and wasting my time.

 

You cannot fight speaking points with facts and logic; as in "witch hunt," "wild goose chase," and, the "Mueller investigation cost the U.S. taxpayer $36 million and found nothing."

 

Folks, a witch hunt is a witch hunt because there's no such thing as a witch! When an investigation finds real, live criminals as the Mueller investigation did, it's not a witch hunt. It's a successful investigation which cost taxpayers next to nothing because of criminal fines.

 

I'm sorry, this place should be well beyond that nonsense and into hard facts and figures demonstrating the premises of an argument. But we can't do that. People try: Charts are posted from credible sources; report's from Trump's government agencies are cited; Politicians' own words are quoted back to them. None of it matters. The next day we're back to basic civics lessons.

 

You know why Trump is president? Because we deserve to have Trump as president.

 

So I laugh. When someone writes: "Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

I laugh. LOL

 

When someone says the Senate should censure Pelosi I laugh. Everytime I hear "witch hunt" I laugh. It's the best thing to do. I'm done tearing my hair out repeating basic, verifiable facts over and over to people who refuse to accept them because they don't want to. I'm going to stick with laughing.

 

Mark 4:3-9

Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

 


@LouLit01 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

@LouLit01 wrote:

"Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

LOL

 

You can't blame the Democrats. They're running around trying to prevent the Senate from censuring Nancy Pelosi.

 

This is just ignorance run rampant. One would think that if there were to be a rational, national debate about the policies of Mr. Trump it would be here, where adults post. Nope, sorry. Take your lack of legal standing elsewither — we're still working on legal understanding here.

 

It seemw that you know the particulars of this court case please can you let me know what you think happened.?

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Here's what I know:

 

You cannot intelligently discuss a federal appeals court decision with someone who can't tell the difference between legal standing and legal understanding.

 

You cannot intelligently discuss the State of the Union speech with people who think the Senate can censure Nancy Pelosi for ripping up the speech, or, in fact, for any reason at all. Can't be done. Do not come here and tell me the Senate should censure Nancy Pelosi — you're embarrassing yourself and wasting my time.

 

You cannot fight speaking points with facts and logic; as in "witch hunt," "wild goose chase," and, the "Mueller investigation cost the U.S. taxpayer $36 million and found nothing."

 

Folks, a witch hunt is a witch hunt because there's no such thing as a witch! When an investigation finds real, live criminals as the Mueller investigation did, it's not a witch hunt. It's a successful investigation which cost taxpayers next to nothing because of criminal fines.

 

I'm sorry, this place should be well beyond that nonsense and into hard facts and figures demonstrating the premises of an argument. But we can't do that. People try: Charts are posted from credible sources; report's from Trump's government agencies are cited; Politicians' own words are quoted back to them. None of it matters. The next day we're back to basic civics lessons.

 

You know why Trump is president? Because we deserve to have Trump as president.

 

So I laugh. When someone writes: "Court Rules Democrats Lack Legal Understanding..." 

I laugh. LOL

 

When someone says the Senate should censure Pelosi I laugh. Everytime I hear "witch hunt" I laugh. It's the best thing to do. I'm done tearing my hair out repeating basic, verifiable facts over and over to people who refuse to accept them because they don't want to. I'm going to stick with laughing.

 

Mark 4:3-9

Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

GREAT  POst  AMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

no name
0 Kudos
190 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I don't think that we know all the particulars of this suit. but I am sure that they had attys and that they consulted previous cases and saw the Supreme Court  Rulings, so  to me that had to have approached this suit in a manner that they thought it wold win.

no name
0 Kudos
367 Views
4
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

I don't think that we know all the particulars of this suit. but I am sure that they had attys and that they consulted previous cases and saw the Supreme Court  Rulings, so  to me that had to have approached this suit in a manner that they thought it wold win.


Don't you see a pattern of Democrats having wild goose chases at the taxpayer's expense?

 

wild goose chase
/ˌwīld ˈɡo͞os ˌCHās,ˌwīl(d)ˈɡo͞os ˌCHās/
noun
noun: wild goose chase; plural noun: wild goose chases
  1. a foolish and hopeless pursuit of something unattainable.
You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
321 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

I don't think that we know all the particulars of this suit. but I am sure that they had attys and that they consulted previous cases and saw the Supreme Court  Rulings, so  to me that had to have approached this suit in a manner that they thought it wold win.


Don't you see a pattern of Democrats having wild goose chases at the taxpayer's expense?

 

wild goose chase
/ˌwīld ˈɡo͞os ˌCHās,ˌwīl(d)ˈɡo͞os ˌCHās/
noun
noun: wild goose chase; plural noun: wild goose chases
  1. a foolish and hopeless pursuit of something unattainable.

That is not an answer of why the case was decided as it was. That is your opinion. Here is a way to find out how the court would rule. Have a citizen of the US file the law suit and see what the court does. You could be the one to file.

0 Kudos
289 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:


Don't you see a pattern of Democrats having wild goose chases at the taxpayer's expense?

 

wild goose chase
/ˌwīld ˈɡo͞os ˌCHās,ˌwīl(d)ˈɡo͞os ˌCHās/
noun
noun: wild goose chase; plural noun: wild goose chases
  1. a foolish and hopeless pursuit of something unattainable.

The only pattern that I see is that the Democrats want to take out Trump and Trump wants to take out the Democrats.

no name
0 Kudos
296 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

What we do understand is the illegality 

of a corrupt president trump, who needs technicalities, not facts, to avoid having to admit how corrupt he really is. 
Just the same as no witnesses and no evidence. No facts, just denials. 

Regular Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

No, no...we understand!

In another questionable ruling, the court does not rule that trump is not guilty of violations, they are claiming that the group filing the complaint does not have legal standing. 

Just for the record, we know that trump is corrupt and making money off of his office...emoluments violations. 


If the Democrats need to be told that they don't have legal standing, they don't have legal understanding.

 

You are getting sleepy.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png