Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso and Greg Store.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's election has turned the previously obscure Emoluments Clause
Speaker 1: into one of the hottest subjects in constitutional law. The
Speaker 1: emoluments Clause says that US government officials can't accept things
Speaker 1: of value from foreign governments and their leaders. It's suddenly
Speaker 1: important because of Donald Trump's worldwide business interests and the
Speaker 1: potential that foreign officials may try to ingratiate themselves with
Speaker 1: the new president. Bloomberg Bona's Crack. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly
Speaker 1: Robinson just delved into the topic with a new story
Speaker 1: titled five Things you Didn't Know about the Emoluments Clause.
Speaker 1: She's here with me in our point one Washington Studios. Hello, Kimberly.
Speaker 1: There were certainly at least a couple of things in
Speaker 1: your article that I didn't know. Uh, start wherever you want.
Speaker 1: What what's one thing we might not know about the
Speaker 1: monuments Clause? Well, I think one thing that was interesting
Speaker 1: for me um is that in the two plus the
Speaker 1: years that the Supreme Court has been operating, it's never
Speaker 1: once examined this gope or application of the clause. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's only actually cited the language of the clause in
Speaker 1: three cases now. Historians say that probably has a lot
Speaker 1: to do with the fact that presidents have tried to
Speaker 1: really distance themselves from their business interests to avoid even
Speaker 1: the appearance of impropriety. And I recently read an article
Speaker 1: from the Carter administration where he insisted that he distance
Speaker 1: himself from his peanut farm. Um. So it hasn't been
Speaker 1: an issue for the Supreme Court um. But who knows,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe we'll see a new claus there. One of
Speaker 1: your points, Kimberly, is that it might not even apply
Speaker 1: to the president, and that's the position that Trump has
Speaker 1: been taking. Well, that's right. There's a line of thinking
Speaker 1: that you know, it only applies to officers of the
Speaker 1: United States who were appointed and not those who were elected.
Speaker 1: And I think one of the strongest supports for that
Speaker 1: argument is the fact that, you know, our first president,
Speaker 1: George Washington actually did accept a number of valuable gifts
Speaker 1: um from from the Prince of Prince um, and so
Speaker 1: that kind of suggests that it doesn't it doesn't apply
Speaker 1: to the presidency. Kimberly, First of all, I think we
Speaker 1: should see how many former presidents we can name in
Speaker 1: this segment. We've gotten a Jimmy Carter and George Washington.
Speaker 1: Let me take you back to eighteen. I believe it is.
Speaker 1: There's a constitutional amendment having to do with this that
Speaker 1: that had had a fascinating twist. Tell us about it, right, So,
Speaker 1: the thirteenth Amendment of our Constitution almost said that people
Speaker 1: who violate the the emoluments clause are actually going to
Speaker 1: be stripped of their U S citizenship. Now, I mean
Speaker 1: that's a pretty intellectually simulating thing to think of your
Speaker 1: president potentially being stripped of their citizenship. But I think
Speaker 1: it's especially interesting in light of, um, some ways that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump made on Twitter earlier this week, UM suggesting
Speaker 1: that you know, flag burners should be punished and should
Speaker 1: be stripped of their citizenship. Seems like the President elect
Speaker 1: may himself have once been at risk of losing his citizenship.
Speaker 1: And that amendment almost almost became part of the constitution. Right,
Speaker 1: it was just what one state, Sure, it was just
Speaker 1: one stage short, but we got a pretty good runner
Speaker 1: up in the in the you know quote new thirteenth Amendment, Um,
Speaker 1: you know that abolished labor. So we've had a good
Speaker 1: Consolation Prize. You know, I didn't realize that there was
Speaker 1: a question about Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize because
Speaker 1: of the ten million Swedish Crowner attached to it. That's right.
Speaker 1: That yeah, just you know, a year into his presidency,
Speaker 1: he was awarded this prestigious award, but there was a
Speaker 1: question whether or not he could accept it because there
Speaker 1: is this equivalency at one point four million dollar prize.
Speaker 1: Uh So, even though the Supreme Court itself hasn't been
Speaker 1: in the business of interpreting the emoluments clause, the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice has and they actually wait in here and said,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not a violation for President Obama to
Speaker 1: accept the prize because it wasn't from a foreign government. Um.
Speaker 1: So they really separated the Nobel Prize Committee and the
Speaker 1: foreign government itself. So then, Kimberly, does that mean that
Speaker 1: they have they do consider applying it to presidents. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's really the majority of view. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, once again, the Supreme Court hasn't decided,
Speaker 1: so it is still an open issue. Kimberly, let me
Speaker 1: let me veer from your list and ask you one
Speaker 1: one issue with the emoluments Clause. Uh, is whether even
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump does violated, whether there's any way that
Speaker 1: could make its way into court, whether anybody would have
Speaker 1: standing to challenge something that he he does. Uh, what's
Speaker 1: your take on that? What are you hearing from? People? Well? Right,
Speaker 1: so the Supreme Court has come up with all different
Speaker 1: rules about who can sue you know whom in court,
Speaker 1: and you really have to have a unique interest, um
Speaker 1: or a unique injury in order to be able to sue.
Speaker 1: And it's it's hard to tell how any one citizen
Speaker 1: could have, you know, a unique enough interest to sue
Speaker 1: Donald Trump for a violation of the emoluments clause. There's
Speaker 1: there's been some argument that maybe um, businesses that compete
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump's this is might be able to do it. Um.
Speaker 1: But we again, we really don't know. And it seems
Speaker 1: like maybe the remedy might have to be a political one.
Speaker 1: And that plays into your fifth point about Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: And but by the way, I never in my life
Speaker 1: expected all this talk about the emoluments clause in the public.
Speaker 1: It's it's just an amazing uh sort of turn. Well,
Speaker 1: that's right. So Hillary Clinton found herself entangled with the
Speaker 1: emoluments clause, um, but not the foreign and not the
Speaker 1: foreign memoluments clause, but the domestic one um. And that
Speaker 1: was when she was a senator and approved a salary
Speaker 1: increase for Secretary of State. And that's happened a few times.
Speaker 1: We want to thank our guest, Kimberly Robinson of BNA,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court Reporter, Thank you for being here. That
Speaker 1: is it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We will
Speaker 1: be back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Reginald Basil
Speaker 1: and our producer uh Mark Sinis Cauchy. You can find
Speaker 1: more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Boomberg
Speaker 1: BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal
Speaker 1: community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masster and Corey Johnson. Carol,
Speaker 1: what are you talking about today? Well, we're gonna take
Speaker 1: everybody to Indianapolis because Donald Trump he's kicking off his
Speaker 1: thank you tour, but he's also going to talk about
Speaker 1: some jobs being saved in the US at the Carrier Corporation.
Speaker 1: So we'll take everybody there live back to you guys. Okay,
Speaker 1: stay tuned for all that and more here on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg