Why the Emoluments Clause Matters

As I am understanding Mr Trump holds the lease from long before he planned to run for president, first off. Second, also as I understand it, he has forsworn all profits from his DC location (?s) to the federal treasury. His name is now on the building and his company is still providing the staff, so he is keeping the operations costs, but renouncing everything else to the US people. I would totally understand if he had just recently leased the building, (since he started his run) but this is not the case. That with forgoing his Presidental paycheck I think should give him some leeway on this issue. This is just another poke at him by people who would not even turn an eye at Mr Obama if he did the same thing.
I may be wrong on my premise, but that is what I have heard about the money side of things. Not saying that the emoluments clause does not have a sound reason, but with so many things in the world, nothing fits just perfect into the lab of paperwork. that is why we are supposed to use our heads and look at the whole situation.

It will be interesting to see if the Court will even find standing to hear the case. President Trump is not the owner, the property is in a trust managed by his sons. There is no case law on this clause.
The Trump sons run the business.
It​ is an interesting legal issue and would be a concern if their was an intermingled of Trump business operations and the administration.
Based on how political the 4th circuit was on the Muslim ban, they will breathe life into this clause.

"In contrast to Barack Obama, whose respect for the Constitution," this is the best laugh I had all day. Thanks for the political levity. At first glance I thought this was a serious article. You got me.