Legal Reform
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents from all across the country understand that our society has become litigious to an extreme degree. Texas has been active for years at improving this problem behind Texans for Lawuit Reform. Since 1994, TLR has worked to pass lawsuit reforms that have made the Lone Star State a model for the nation. TLR describes the problem best on their website "We are small business owners, homemakers, and community volunteers. We are lawyers who want our profession back, and plant managers who want our companies to expand facilities to create jobs for Texans. We are consumers who want to eliminate the wasteful "tort tax" from the products and services produced in Texas. We are ranchers and teachers who have anguished over needless lawsuits. We are doctors and nurses who have seen our colleagues abandon their chosen professions because of the emotional and financial toll imposed by legal assaults. We are the citizens of Texas who want a better future for ourselves and our children." The ability to bring suit for a grievance is an important right in America that must not be abused either from limitation to use or excessive use. Today it is excessive use. The Overcriminalization guide prepared by The Heritage Foundation is an eye opener.

"totally without merit"

from The Gray Area:

It has been stated since his election that Donald Trump could be in violation of the Constitution his first day in office. So today a lawsuit was issued by the liberal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). They allege Donald Trump is in violation of the little known emoluments clause of the Constitution that bars him from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments because he didn't sufficiently divest himself of his business holdings. This is the latest in the left's continuing attacks on Donald Trump as President. Donald Trump agrees, saying this lawsuit is "totally without merit".

While it is critically important to monitor conflicts of interests and gifts to any office holder, it is equally important to involve common sense. The attacks on Donald Trump's business interests during his Presidency go beyond reasonable care and threaten common sense.

What they are saying with these attacks is that we want to make sure that no President ever comes from any background other than politics or the legal profession. Otherwise they will most certainly be in violation of some conflict concern. In this case, paying a bill at a Trump hotel.

Common sense will tell you that is not what our concern should be. Our concern is that certain gifts can cause an office holder and particularly a President to make decisions in a way that is not in the best interest of the US. Mr. Trump's enemies will invoke such laws every time he makes as decision they do not like, which is every decision. But his company just doing business while he is President is in no way a Constitutional violation. If he opened a hotel in Russia that he negotiated himself and included terms of government benefits to Russia in the negotiations, that would be a problem. And, one that would be clearly visible to everyone if performed by a President. To sum up: -this is another political tactic designed to stop Trump, following protests (riots), recounts, elector harassment, elector disqualification and threats, Russian cyberattacks during the election for the benefit of Trump, and more protests. Now lawsuits begin. -Legal experts say the constitutional provision is unclear. Beyond lavish gifts bestowed by foreign officials, the definition of “emoluments” is murky. -So paying hotel bills are supposed to fall into this category now. Paying a standard room rate, wouldn’t be awarding Trump a “gift” -why weren't these legal experts up in arms about Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State taking huge payments to her Foundation? Which she did and traded government favors for. If you want a good chuckle, read the lawsuit ... Is the issue clear now.

More From The Wall Street Journal:

Lawsuit Against Donald Trump Shines Light on Emoluments Clause

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )