That’s actually a really good question. If the law clearly forbids something, but does not prescribe any specific punishment for a violation of that law, can it be considered a crime?
I think it can likely be inferred that violations of the emoluments clause should be addressed through impeachment and, because these suits did not go through the impeachment route, it could be argued that they are moot.
OOPS WE FORGOT TO MAKE IT A CRIME TO TAKE BRIBES, SORRY
But the suit in question wasn’t based on any laws against bribery or corruption in particular (which do make it a crime). They based it on the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which does not specify a punishment for violations. The Supreme Court has essentially said, “You can’t do it, but nothing will happen to you if you do.”
But wait, there’s more!
I’m receiving an emolument from a foreign potentate RIGHT NOW
First off, there is a long list of government employees who have been convicted of bribery by foreign agents/officials, which is what the actual criminal charge covered by the foreign emoluments clause would be, I believe. So it’s definitely a crime.
Second, this was a lawsuit, not criminal charges (thanks @Glacian!) , so I don’t think SCOTUS is saying what people think they are saying about that. Still bullshirt, though.
Allow me to clarify what I meant. I am not saying that bribery is not a crime in the United States. It of course is. I merely meant to say that it is not a crime because of the Emoluments Clause, but rather, because of other laws that have been passed since the ratification of the Constitution. I just wanted to point out that, because this suit (and it was indeed a lawsuit to boot) was brought under the Emoluments Clause and the Emoluments Clause does not specify the handling of violations, the matter is moot. Trump can and should be brought up on charges of bribery, but the Emoluments Clause is not the right legal basis for doing so. That is all that I wanted to say.
I still think you might be wrong. The historical writings on the Emoluments Clause state that many government officials have been prosecuted under it, but that the actual charge in court is for “bribery by foreign officials” or something like that.
I do hope you’re the sharing kind…
I have here a quote from “The Week” from 2019.
“The truth is that centuries later we still have no idea. Presidents receive hundreds of gifts each year and no one particularly cares. The clause has never given rise to any legal cases of note, and it has never been defined or even meaningfully addressed by the Supreme Court.”
And here is from WaPo:
"8. What does legal precedent tell us?
Not much. It’s exceedingly rare for emoluments to be litigated in court, especially as they relate to the president. But the issue does come up occasionally. In 2009, amid political dueling about whether President Barack Obama could keep his Nobel Peace Prize, the Justice Department advised that there was no emoluments violation because the committee that awards the prize isn’t a “King, Prince, or foreign State.” In 1963, President John F. Kennedy declined an offer of honorary Irish citizenship on the advice of the Justice Department."
I think that the Emoluments Clause is being conflated with other laws in your source.
It sounded like the suits were basically for injunctions to force him to stop doing it, not to punish him for what he’d already done. Once he’s out of office, there’s no relief of stopping his future conduct. But, there’s nothing stopping someone from enforcing whatever laws he broke while he was in office, or getting relief in civil court for damages he did to competing businesses, etc. It would probably help if Congress passes some laws governing emoluments and a process for punishing violations.
Only if you consider it to exclusively apply to the President. It does not. It applies to all “federal officers” a.k.a. Federal office holders. Many have been charged, tried, and convicted under the emoluments clause. Just not any Presidents. Yet.
Can you point me in the direction of any of these historical cases? The search engine results are clogged up with this most recent case here. Also, did the cases you are referring to result in anything beyond removal from office? I know that the clause applies to all federal office holders, but I am not aware of any precedential cases in which it has been actually applied, even to office holders besides the president.
Here’s a useful link, far from the only one:
Far from any popular outrage at such official profiteering, Americans often cheer and, in some cases, re-elect public officials convicted of such crimes. Governors of 13 different states have been convicted of illegally profiting from their offices. In Illinois alone, one U.S. senator, six representatives, and five governors have been convicted of illegal profiteering, along with fifteen judges and twenty city and state officials of varying ranks. In Connecticut, Bridgeport voters re-elected their mayor for a seventh term after he had served six years in federal prison.
Yes, but were these people convicted under the Emoluments Clause or were they convicted under other laws? Governors are not federal officers, for example, so the Emoluments Clause should not even apply to them.
The article mentions the Teapot Dome Scandal, but Albert Fall was not tried or convicted under the Emoluments Clause:
“Appellant Albert B. Fall was convicted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia of the crime of bribery in violation of section 117 of the United States Criminal Code ( 18 USCA § 207); and from a judgment sentencing him to pay a fine of $100,000 with imprisonment for one year this appeal was prosecuted.”
In fact, here is a list of federal officials who have been convicted of corruption, and it seems that a majority of them were convicted under the Hobbs Act (as were many of those governors you mention).
And now we’re going in circles. Yay!
Yeah, I guess we’re getting into semantics about what the “actual charge in court” part signifies here. When you think about it, I suppose all of those laws like the Hobbs Act can be viewed as an extension of the Emoluments Clause, merely filling in the details that the Constitution (as a rather compact document) leaves out. All US laws ultimately flow from the Constitution and, as long as a law does not explicitly contradict the Constitution, the distinction becomes a bit esoteric.
In any case, there are still many, many laws on the books that Trump has no doubt violated and for which he can now be tried, so let’s not get too discouraged.
That’s still nonsense because the law currently allows for people to run for president again if they have only served one term in the past (and this directly contributes to the possibility of running for a second term in the future).
Don’t understand this. Just because he isn’t president any more? Surely if he’s done wrong, the case should still apply, regardless of what he’s doing now. If I commit a crime and then change my job, does that then let me off?
