Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating the Constitution If He Continues to Own His Businesses
Far from ending with President-elect Trump's announcement that he will separate himself from the management of his business empire, the constitutional debate about the meaning of the Emoluments Clause — and whether Trump will be violating it — is likely just beginning.
Editor's Note: One version of the diamond-encrusted gift given to Benjamin Franklin by the King of France
That's because the Emoluments Clause seems to bar Trump’s ownership of his business. It has little to do with his management of it. Trump's tweets last Wednesday said he would be "completely out of business operations."
The Emoluments Clause bars US officials, including the president, from receiving payments from foreign governments or foreign government entities unless the payments are specifically approved by Congress. As ProPublica and others have detailed, Trump’s business has ties with foreign government entities ranging from loans and leases with the Bank of China to what appear to be tax-supported hotel deals in India and elsewhere. The full extent of such ties remains unknown, and Trump has refused to disclose them, or to make public his tax returns, through which many such deals, if they exist, would be revealed. Foreign government investments in Trump entities would also be covered by the clause, as would foreign government officials paying to stay in Trump hotels, so long as Trump stands to share in the revenues.
One misconception about the Emoluments Clause in early press coverage of it in the wake of Trump's election is being clarified as scholars look more closely at the provision's history. That was the suggestion that it would not be a violation for the Trump Organization to conduct business with foreign government entities if "fair market value" was received by the governments.
This view had been attributed to Professor Richard Painter, a former official of the George W. Bush administration, and privately by some others. But Professor Laurence Tribe, the author of the leading treatise on constitutional law, and others said the Emoluments Clause was more sweeping, and mandated a ban on such dealings without congressional approval. Painter now largely agrees, telling ProPublica that no fair market value test would apply to the sale of services (specifically including hotel rooms), and such a test would apply only to the sale of goods. The Trump Organization mostly sells services, such as hotel stays, golf memberships, branding deals and management services.
The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any "person holding any office of profit or trust under" the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state” "without the consent of the Congress." The word "emolument" comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain. The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-89. The clause was derived from a Dutch rule dating to 1751.
The clause was added to the draft Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his state’s ratification convention in 1788, Pinckney's motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congress's ambassador to France. As Randolph said,
"An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states."
The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented, after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee. At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain.
Pages: 1 · 2
More Articles
- The National Archives: Holding It Together: Before Passwords — Ribbons and Seals for Document Security
- Remarks by President Obama on Research for Potential Ebola Vaccine, December 02, 2014
- An Example of Whistleblower Rights and Protections from the US Department of Justice
- 10 AM, EST, Wednesday Hearings Livestreamed: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump; Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment
- Chargé d’Affaires William Taylor's Ukraine Testimony's Opening Statement and Background
- Revisiting Favorite Books: Kristin Lavransdatter, the Trilogy - The Wreath, The Mistress of Husaby and The Cross
- Revisiting Favorite Books: Kristin Lavransdatter, the Trilogy - The Wreath, The Mistress of Husaby and The Cross
- Elevating the Conversation: How a New Message Helped Win the Fight for Same-sex Marriage
- Reading Recommendations from Radcliffe’s Fellows and SeniorWomen's Editor
- The Whoppers of 2017: President Trump Monopolizes Fact-Check.org's List of the Year’s Worst Falsehoods and Bogus Claims.