The Case for Removal from Office: The Brookings Institution
Yesterday, the Brookings Institution issued a position paper authored by Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe called THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE: ITS TEXT, MEANING, AND APPLICATION TO DONALD J. TRUMP. Here are the brief bios on the authors as published by Brookings:
“Norman L. Eisen, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014. He is the chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007. He is the vice chair of CREW. Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University.”
These knowledgeable and deeply experienced legal professionals are ringing the alarm bells about the many ways a Cheeto Jesus presidency would be in violation of the Emoluments Clause should he take office. Emoluments is an 18th century word that means remuneration or in short, payments. They say that the Emoluments Clause was drafted into the Constitution because the Founders were intimately familiar with the subtle corruption practiced by English aristocracy, especially the king, who bought his own countrymen and subjects in the colonies to maintain power by giving gifts to win loyalty. Avoiding corruption was so paramount that the Founders didn’t just support legislation against it, they drafted it into the body of the Constitution itself. In the words of Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout,
“Corruption, in the American tradition, does not just include blatant bribes and theft from the public till, but encompasses many situations where politicians and public institutions serve private interests at the public’s expense. This idea of corruption jealously guards the public morality of the interactions between representatives of government and private parties, foreign parties, or other politicians.”
After laying out their reasoning, Eisen, Painter, and Tribe come to this conclusion:
“It is plain that a President Trump would be subject to removal from office for the intentional abuse of power that this manifestly unconstitutional intermingling of private and public concerns would entail. When this guillotine might fall is a matter of political more than legal calculation, and is thus beyond the scope of our analysis. Likewise, just how the ongoing prospect of such an ignominious end to a Trump presidency would embolden his political adversaries at home and abroad, and undermine his legitimacy in the eyes of the American public and global community, is impossible to predict. So too, we cannot anticipate how the omnipresent prospect of such a disgraceful end would distort the dynamics of a President Trump’s ability to serve the domestic and national security interests of the nation. But that this looming constitutional shadow over his time in office would grievously disserve the people of the United States is beyond doubt.”
The authors also offer several options to resolve this clear violation of the Constitution:
- The Electoral College is well within its Constitutional authority to decline to vote for CJ.
- If he takes office without resolving this violation, he could be impeached.
- The Congress, under the Necessary & Proper Clause, the “Consent of Congress” language in the Emoluments Clause, can pass legislation requiring CJ to adhere to the Constitution ordering him to remove the conflicts by divestment of his assets.
- Private actions against CJ by parties injured by his actions (disadvantaged competitors) can also be filed that require disgorgement of ill-gotten gains he received as president.
It’s clear that the very second that CJ takes office he’ll be in direct and actual violation of the Constitution. I’m wondering how many lawsuits and legislation will be introduced to remove him. It will be fun to see the damage and fraud suits that will be filed. However, the ensuing days after January 20 will be historic, and pretty frightening, especially knowing how thin skinned and vindictive he is.
All I know is that the sooner this is resolved and this threat to our democracy removed, the sooner we can start repairing the damage.