4 ms·

I did a spot of research on the emoluments clause and found three instances where specific events were evaluated for breaching this clause: 1 - Theodore Roosev

I did a spot of research on the emoluments clause and found three instances where specific events were evaluated for breaching this clause: 1 - Theodore Roosevelt. Nobel Peace Prize. He accept both the cash award and the medal. 2 - Barack Obama. Nobel Peace Prize. He accepted only the medal. ... and most interestingly ... 3 - Ronald Reagan. Receipt of pension payments from the state of California as a former Governor and California pension plan participant. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1981/06/31/op-olc-v005-p0187.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/198... The way I read the analysis of Ronald Reagan's situation, any benefit from a domestic state, city, or county could potentially fall afoul of the emoluments clause. Think here of any local property tax rebate from a city to entice a Trump business to build a hotel or set up shop. Maybe even a tax rebate / waiver from prior business development agreement could fall afoul. Who knows how deep this particular rabbit hole could go. I also was puzzling over Hobby Lobby the other day and I realized that Trump's situation vis-a-vie the emoluments clause could be parallel to Hobby Lobby versus the ACA. Hobby Lobby wanted out of the mandate for birth control and the Supreme Court sided with them because Hobby Lobby was a closely held corporation; close enough where the owners' religious beliefs could be infringed upon by ACA birth control mandates on the corporation they controlled. I believe the Trump empire is a closely held corporation like Hobby Lobby. Per the Supreme Court a closely held corporation like Hobby Lobby has a personal connection unlike widely held corporation. Simply saying payments made to Trump's corporation is a sufficient separation from the person to avoid the emoluments clause may not be a strong argument for those arguing Trump's side. Edit: IANAL, but rather a politics major.

Gupie 10y ago
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is not a "foreign state".
- dagw 10y ago
  No, but the committee is directly appointed by the Norwegian parliament, so the argument could reasonably be made that they're essentially accepting a prize from a foreign state.
  - Gupie 10y ago
    No, "Despite its members being appointed by parliament, the committee is a private body tasked with awarding a private prize" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee
    - dagw 10y ago
      Yea, I know that's the official line. But it would be fairly easy for a lawyer to argue otherwise.
      - Gupie 10y ago
        That is what lawyers get paid for, but no attempt to impeach Obama was made for accepting the Nobel peace prize which indicates any such argument would have no chance of succeeding, would not be valid.
        dagw 10y ago
        But Obama did turn down the cash part of the prize, only accepting the medal and diploma, specifically to avoid any such potential problems.
        Gupie 10y ago
        I wouldn't think there is a legal distinction between the cash and the medal. Accepting the money would probably been politically unacceptable even with out any legal issues. But I accept you are correct about the potential legal difficulties in accepting the prize at all: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10...
      - runeb 10y ago
        I don't know about that. Look into the 2010 price to Liu Xiaobo. Norway worked for 6 years to try to repair relations with China after that and trade has only recently been opened again.

Gupie 10y ago

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is not a "foreign state".

dagw 10y ago
No, but the committee is directly appointed by the Norwegian parliament, so the argument could reasonably be made that they're essentially accepting a prize from a foreign state.
- Gupie 10y ago
  No, "Despite its members being appointed by parliament, the committee is a private body tasked with awarding a private prize" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee
  - dagw 10y ago
    Yea, I know that's the official line. But it would be fairly easy for a lawyer to argue otherwise.
    - Gupie 10y ago
      That is what lawyers get paid for, but no attempt to impeach Obama was made for accepting the Nobel peace prize which indicates any such argument would have no chance of succeeding, would not be valid.
      - dagw 10y ago
        But Obama did turn down the cash part of the prize, only accepting the medal and diploma, specifically to avoid any such potential problems.
        Gupie 10y ago
        I wouldn't think there is a legal distinction between the cash and the medal. Accepting the money would probably been politically unacceptable even with out any legal issues. But I accept you are correct about the potential legal difficulties in accepting the prize at all: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10...
    - runeb 10y ago
      I don't know about that. Look into the 2010 price to Liu Xiaobo. Norway worked for 6 years to try to repair relations with China after that and trade has only recently been opened again.