WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law: Robinson on Emoluments Clause (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.119
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso and Greg Store.

0:00:03.640 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump's election has turned the previously obscure Emoluments Clause

0:00:07.680 --> 0:00:10.680
<v Speaker 1>into one of the hottest subjects in constitutional law. The

0:00:10.680 --> 0:00:14.160
<v Speaker 1>emoluments Clause says that US government officials can't accept things

0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>of value from foreign governments and their leaders. It's suddenly

0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:20.599
<v Speaker 1>important because of Donald Trump's worldwide business interests and the

0:00:20.640 --> 0:00:24.560
<v Speaker 1>potential that foreign officials may try to ingratiate themselves with

0:00:24.640 --> 0:00:28.760
<v Speaker 1>the new president. Bloomberg Bona's Crack. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly

0:00:28.840 --> 0:00:31.400
<v Speaker 1>Robinson just delved into the topic with a new story

0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:34.640
<v Speaker 1>titled five Things you Didn't Know about the Emoluments Clause.

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:38.720
<v Speaker 1>She's here with me in our point one Washington Studios. Hello, Kimberly.

0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 1>There were certainly at least a couple of things in

0:00:43.640 --> 0:00:47.360
<v Speaker 1>your article that I didn't know. Uh, start wherever you want.

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:50.080
<v Speaker 1>What what's one thing we might not know about the

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:52.960
<v Speaker 1>monuments Clause? Well, I think one thing that was interesting

0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:55.720
<v Speaker 1>for me um is that in the two plus the

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:58.080
<v Speaker 1>years that the Supreme Court has been operating, it's never

0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:02.240
<v Speaker 1>once examined this gope or application of the clause. In fact,

0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:04.360
<v Speaker 1>it's only actually cited the language of the clause in

0:01:04.400 --> 0:01:08.080
<v Speaker 1>three cases now. Historians say that probably has a lot

0:01:08.120 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>to do with the fact that presidents have tried to

0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>really distance themselves from their business interests to avoid even

0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:18.720
<v Speaker 1>the appearance of impropriety. And I recently read an article

0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:23.040
<v Speaker 1>from the Carter administration where he insisted that he distance

0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:26.640
<v Speaker 1>himself from his peanut farm. Um. So it hasn't been

0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:29.520
<v Speaker 1>an issue for the Supreme Court um. But who knows,

0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:32.440
<v Speaker 1>maybe maybe we'll see a new claus there. One of

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:35.959
<v Speaker 1>your points, Kimberly, is that it might not even apply

0:01:36.120 --> 0:01:39.319
<v Speaker 1>to the president, and that's the position that Trump has

0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:43.040
<v Speaker 1>been taking. Well, that's right. There's a line of thinking

0:01:43.120 --> 0:01:46.039
<v Speaker 1>that you know, it only applies to officers of the

0:01:46.120 --> 0:01:49.160
<v Speaker 1>United States who were appointed and not those who were elected.

0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:51.680
<v Speaker 1>And I think one of the strongest supports for that

0:01:51.800 --> 0:01:54.200
<v Speaker 1>argument is the fact that, you know, our first president,

0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:57.360
<v Speaker 1>George Washington actually did accept a number of valuable gifts

0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:01.000
<v Speaker 1>um from from the Prince of Prince um, and so

0:02:01.040 --> 0:02:03.240
<v Speaker 1>that kind of suggests that it doesn't it doesn't apply

0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:05.520
<v Speaker 1>to the presidency. Kimberly, First of all, I think we

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:07.680
<v Speaker 1>should see how many former presidents we can name in

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>this segment. We've gotten a Jimmy Carter and George Washington.

0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 1>Let me take you back to eighteen. I believe it is.

0:02:14.080 --> 0:02:17.360
<v Speaker 1>There's a constitutional amendment having to do with this that

0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>that had had a fascinating twist. Tell us about it, right, So,

0:02:21.400 --> 0:02:25.160
<v Speaker 1>the thirteenth Amendment of our Constitution almost said that people

0:02:25.160 --> 0:02:28.440
<v Speaker 1>who violate the the emoluments clause are actually going to

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 1>be stripped of their U S citizenship. Now, I mean

0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:35.320
<v Speaker 1>that's a pretty intellectually simulating thing to think of your

0:02:35.320 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>president potentially being stripped of their citizenship. But I think

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:41.239
<v Speaker 1>it's especially interesting in light of, um, some ways that

0:02:41.320 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump made on Twitter earlier this week, UM suggesting

0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:47.400
<v Speaker 1>that you know, flag burners should be punished and should

0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:51.120
<v Speaker 1>be stripped of their citizenship. Seems like the President elect

0:02:51.120 --> 0:02:54.320
<v Speaker 1>may himself have once been at risk of losing his citizenship.

0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.080
<v Speaker 1>And that amendment almost almost became part of the constitution. Right,

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>it was just what one state, Sure, it was just

0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:03.120
<v Speaker 1>one stage short, but we got a pretty good runner

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.760
<v Speaker 1>up in the in the you know quote new thirteenth Amendment, Um,

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:08.799
<v Speaker 1>you know that abolished labor. So we've had a good

0:03:08.840 --> 0:03:13.520
<v Speaker 1>Consolation Prize. You know, I didn't realize that there was

0:03:13.639 --> 0:03:19.280
<v Speaker 1>a question about Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize because

0:03:19.560 --> 0:03:25.639
<v Speaker 1>of the ten million Swedish Crowner attached to it. That's right.

0:03:25.760 --> 0:03:28.720
<v Speaker 1>That yeah, just you know, a year into his presidency,

0:03:28.840 --> 0:03:32.000
<v Speaker 1>he was awarded this prestigious award, but there was a

0:03:32.120 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>question whether or not he could accept it because there

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:37.920
<v Speaker 1>is this equivalency at one point four million dollar prize.

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 1>Uh So, even though the Supreme Court itself hasn't been

0:03:41.480 --> 0:03:44.360
<v Speaker 1>in the business of interpreting the emoluments clause, the Department

0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>of Justice has and they actually wait in here and said,

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's not a violation for President Obama to

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 1>accept the prize because it wasn't from a foreign government. Um.

0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:58.680
<v Speaker 1>So they really separated the Nobel Prize Committee and the

0:03:58.760 --> 0:04:01.560
<v Speaker 1>foreign government itself. So then, Kimberly, does that mean that

0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:06.160
<v Speaker 1>they have they do consider applying it to presidents. Yeah.

0:04:06.200 --> 0:04:09.400
<v Speaker 1>I think that's that's really the majority of view. Um.

0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:12.200
<v Speaker 1>But you know, once again, the Supreme Court hasn't decided,

0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:15.640
<v Speaker 1>so it is still an open issue. Kimberly, let me

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:17.960
<v Speaker 1>let me veer from your list and ask you one

0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>one issue with the emoluments Clause. Uh, is whether even

0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:26.960
<v Speaker 1>if Donald Trump does violated, whether there's any way that

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:29.320
<v Speaker 1>could make its way into court, whether anybody would have

0:04:29.360 --> 0:04:34.120
<v Speaker 1>standing to challenge something that he he does. Uh, what's

0:04:34.160 --> 0:04:36.680
<v Speaker 1>your take on that? What are you hearing from? People? Well? Right,

0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>so the Supreme Court has come up with all different

0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:40.760
<v Speaker 1>rules about who can sue you know whom in court,

0:04:40.839 --> 0:04:44.240
<v Speaker 1>and you really have to have a unique interest, um

0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:46.479
<v Speaker 1>or a unique injury in order to be able to sue.

0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:49.120
<v Speaker 1>And it's it's hard to tell how any one citizen

0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 1>could have, you know, a unique enough interest to sue

0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:55.360
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump for a violation of the emoluments clause. There's

0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:59.120
<v Speaker 1>there's been some argument that maybe um, businesses that compete

0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:02.159
<v Speaker 1>with Donald Trump's this is might be able to do it. Um.

0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:05.159
<v Speaker 1>But we again, we really don't know. And it seems

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:08.159
<v Speaker 1>like maybe the remedy might have to be a political one.

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:12.559
<v Speaker 1>And that plays into your fifth point about Hillary Clinton.

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:14.840
<v Speaker 1>And but by the way, I never in my life

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 1>expected all this talk about the emoluments clause in the public.

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 1>It's it's just an amazing uh sort of turn. Well,

0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:28.200
<v Speaker 1>that's right. So Hillary Clinton found herself entangled with the

0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:31.359
<v Speaker 1>emoluments clause, um, but not the foreign and not the

0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:34.560
<v Speaker 1>foreign memoluments clause, but the domestic one um. And that

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:38.839
<v Speaker 1>was when she was a senator and approved a salary

0:05:38.839 --> 0:05:41.360
<v Speaker 1>increase for Secretary of State. And that's happened a few times.

0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 1>We want to thank our guest, Kimberly Robinson of BNA,

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:48.080
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court Reporter, Thank you for being here. That

0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:50.279
<v Speaker 1>is it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We will

0:05:50.279 --> 0:05:53.560
<v Speaker 1>be back tomorrow thanks to our technical director Reginald Basil

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 1>and our producer uh Mark Sinis Cauchy. You can find

0:05:57.640 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 1>more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Boomberg

0:06:00.400 --> 0:06:03.000
<v Speaker 1>BNA dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal

0:06:03.040 --> 0:06:06.000
<v Speaker 1>community at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on

0:06:06.040 --> 0:06:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masster and Corey Johnson. Carol,

0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:12.400
<v Speaker 1>what are you talking about today? Well, we're gonna take

0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:16.000
<v Speaker 1>everybody to Indianapolis because Donald Trump he's kicking off his

0:06:16.040 --> 0:06:17.680
<v Speaker 1>thank you tour, but he's also going to talk about

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:21.040
<v Speaker 1>some jobs being saved in the US at the Carrier Corporation.

0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 1>So we'll take everybody there live back to you guys. Okay,

0:06:23.680 --> 0:06:26.640
<v Speaker 1>stay tuned for all that and more here on Bloomberg Radio.

0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg