The attorney generals of Maryland and Washington D.C. are preparing an emoluments lawsuit against President Trump to analyze his business dealings, especially with foreign diplomats. A federal judge denied Trump's request to stay the case and told parties to begin the discovery process. The case involves whether Trump's business dealings violate constitutional emoluments clauses that prohibit government officials from receiving gifts from foreign officials or benefits from state governments.

1. Classmate's Post
Aimee Holtz
The attorney generals of Maryland and Washington D.C. are
preparing an emoluments lawsuit
against President Trump. Trump requested a stay in the case but
a Federal District Judge denied
his request and told the parties to start the process of discovery.
The case will be analyzing
Trump's business dealings, especially those concerning foreign
diplomats.
1. The case is involving a federal constitutional law. As stated
in the textbook, a constitutional
law "is the branch of law that is based on the Constitution for a
particular level of government
(Textbook, pg. 7, para. 2)."The specific provision of the
Constitution are the emoluments clauses.
One clause states that government officials are prohibited from
receiving gifts/payment from
other foreign officials. The second clause involved states that
the President cannot accept benefits
from state governments. The plaintiffs in this case will
specifically be looking into Trump's
dealings with foreign officials at the Trump International Hotel.
2. The court hearing the case is not mentioned in the article.
3. The business is not the party being sued, however, the
dealings of the Trump International
Hotel will be the focal point of the case. The hotel will have to

2. turn over all of the records and
documents so that they can be analyzed for wrong doing.
Although the hotel won't be shut down,
the owner, Trump, will face consequences if he loses the case.
4. There is an ethical issue in terms of integrity. If the case is
proven that Trump offered foreign
officials favors and expected a return, it puts Trump's integrity
as well as the businesses integrity
in question. He is essentially doing a secret deal and not
disclosing the details, which creates the
impression that there is something to hide. As president, Trump
is especially not allowed to
engage in these types of activities.
*Article on The National Public Radio website
Reese Murphy
1. I found an article on (wbur.org) called "Airbnb is Tough
Competition For Berkshire Inns; New State
Law May Have Impact". This news article involves state
constitutional law. Berkshires is located in
Berkshire County, Massachusetts. People have been renting out
their rooms in their homes in this area for
decades now, in order to earn extra income. The law that was
passed by Massachusetts state legisislature
essentially "leveled the playing field" between Airbnb's and
these local Berkshire rentals. There are
plenty of valid arguments on the side of Airbnb, with this
providing income for people that rely on it due
to injury or retirement. This is what the Massachusetts law
requires: it requires a state-room tax to be
charged to short term renters, purchase liability insurance for $1
million per year, and register with the
state. This is requiring short term renters to essentially make

3. their personal information public, which
Airbnb is not happy about. I believe this relates to the fourth
amendment of the constitutional bill of
rights. The fourth amendment does normally apply to warrants
and seizures, but it still states that no
person should have their person, houses, papers, and effects
violated, which is what I believe is happening
with their personal information being made public.
2. Jeffrey Lynch is an attorney that represents 10 Airbnb's and
Inn's in Lenox, Massachusetts. The article
does not specify a court that the case was held in, but I'm
assuming it was within the Berkshire county in
Massachusetts where the issue has arrised.
3. This case is heavily business related. It involves Airbnb,
which is one of the most valuable recent
startups (valuation of +/- $30 Billion) and residents of the
Berkshires in Massachusetts that rent out rooms
in their house to make income. Business ethics are being
questioned by residents of Berkshire. Business
ethics as defined in the text, are balancing profits with values
(textbook 3-1 paragraph 2). With more
Airbnb's popping up in this town, renters are moving from the
Berkshire rentals into the Airbnb's,
impacting berkshire's rentals negatively.
4. Similarly to question 3, the business ethics of the Airbnb
renters are in question. Personally, I
understand the point being made by the Berkshire residents, but
their argument is invalid. They are
simply disputing free trade, capitalism, and competition, which
drives business and the market in the

4. United States. I believe this law that is set to "level the playing
field", is challenging the morales of our
country in business. Without competition, we would have much
higher prices for every consumable and
service. The rights theory, described in the text (textbook 3-1c
paragraph 7) state that we all have a set of
rights that must be honored and protected by government. Are
the Airbnb renters being protected and
treated justly? No. The Berkshire residents are being favored
simply because they were there first, which
is totally unjust.
Robert Dlugaszewski
In Bladensburg, Maryland a giant Latin cross sits in the middle
of a busy traffic intersection on public
land honoring WWI deceased and has been there for over 90
years. Now the question is asked,"Does the
monument violate the First Amendment, which prohibits
government establishments of religion?"
(Garnett). This is one of those Federal Constitutional Laws that
the outcome of the case in unpredictable
and manipulable,"For more than three decades, justices'
opinions in these cases have consisted mainly of
speculation about the message various symbols convey to
imaginary observers,"(Garnett). This case
hasn't yet been brought up in court and is has been almost 15
years since a case like this has surfaced, this
case goes to Supreme Court on the 27th of February which is
next Wednesday. The big thing that the
Supreme Court is going to have to worry about is the ethics, a
branch of philosophy dealing with values
that relate to the nature of human conduct and values associated
with that conduct(Section 3-1, para 2), on
their final decision that could put justices in a unembellished

5. and uncomfortable conflict with
longstanding practices. In the end the Supreme Court is gonna
have to come up with a solution that is
primum non nocere, which means,"above all, do no
harm,"(Section 3-3a, para 3), which some of the
justices, who have been on the Supreme Court for some time,
have been proposing. This being to make
the ruling on the case,"that because memorials and displays
using religious symbols do not coerce
religious activities or entangle church and state, they are simply
not ‘establishments’ of
religion,"(Garnett).
Source: Garnett, Richard W. “Supreme Court Memorial Cross
Case to Help Clarify Law Regarding
Public Religious Symbols, Notre Dame Expert Says | Newswise:
News for Journalists.” Newswise =
Smart News Connection, 21 Feb. 2019, 10:05am
Jacqueline Campbell
https://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-marijuana-
legalization-hearing-State-House-2326848
0
The news article that I picked out is "Marijuana legalization
showdown in New Hampshire State House."
This article has state constitutional law involved and involves
civil liberties amongst Americans in New
Hampshire fighting for this bill to be passed. There are two

6. sides to this issue and that is those that want
marijuana to be legalized and those who do not. The first public
hearing will take place at the New
Hampshire State House and discuss the differences of if this bill
should be passed. The American Civil
Liberties Union of New Hampshire states that legalizing
marijuana is a way to eliminate unfair penalties
by law enforcement. They think that communities of color and
minorities are targeted most by law
enforcement and think passing this bill will put an end to the
war on marijuana. The opponents, such as
the Governor, are arguing that the bill should not be passed
now, especially with the opioid crisis
occurring. The opponents are thinking of protecting the state,
(Textbook pg, 42, para 1) and trying not to
put citizens in more danger if this bill is passed. They stated in
the article that statistics show that
marijuana is a dangerous drug right now and passing this bill
will increase it further in harming more
citizens of New Hampshire. There are ethics that are seen on
both sides (Textbook pg. 34, para. 2) and
their goals are to value their society in the right way no matter
the outcome.