New York State Attorney General’s Unconstitutional Lawsuit Seeks $370 Million from Donald Trump and Business Partners

New York State Attorney General Letitia James has filed an unconstitutional and unfair lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, his business, his two oldest sons, and two business partners. James is seeking the return of $370 million, which she claims was obtained through fraud. Additionally, she wants to permanently ban Trump from operating a business in New York State. The judge overseeing the case has ruled in favor of James, ordering all of Trump’s New York businesses to be placed in receivership and sold, with Trump only receiving the proceeds from a forced fire sale.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump fraudulently inflated the value of his assets in order to obtain favorable loan interest rates from banks. However, it is worth noting that no bank has come forward to complain about Trump’s actions. Furthermore, James is imposing an exorbitant and unconstitutional penalty on Trump for what essentially amounts to a victimless crime.

The application of New York State law in this case raises concerns about due process. It resembles a politically motivated Bill of Attainder, a legislative act that targets an unpopular individual for punishment. In Trump’s case, a broad state law is being used in an unprecedented manner, depriving him of his property without proper legal recourse. It is widely acknowledged that this is primarily fueled by animosity towards Trump, particularly within the Democratic Party.

Bills of Attainder are explicitly prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property without due process of law. Banning Trump from running a business and auctioning off his assets in a fire sale not only violates these constitutional rights, but also raises concerns under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which mandates just compensation for seized property.

Despite my previous opposition to Trump and recognition of his propensity for dishonesty, it is crucial to acknowledge that he still possesses the fundamental right to conduct business in New York under the same conditions as any other citizen. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 affirms that Trump, as a Florida resident, has the same rights as New York citizens to engage in business activities within the state. To justify her actions, James must demonstrate that other New Yorkers have faced similar business bans and asset seizures for victimless crimes involving deception.

Looking forward, it is worth considering the implications of occupational licensing restrictions. While certain professions, such as doctors, airplane pilots, and engineers, are reasonably licensed for public safety, the licensing requirements imposed on barbers, flower shops, and tanning salons potentially infringe on individuals’ rights. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will eventually revisit the case of The Slaughter-House Cases and recognize Americans’ constitutional right to pursue any occupation that does not harm third parties, as outlined in the Constitutions of Germany, Japan, South Africa, and Israel.

In summary, New York State Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit against Donald Trump, his business, and his associates raises significant concerns about constitutionality and due process. Trump’s alleged victimless crime and James’ punitive actions highlight a broader issue of political bias and the need for a fair and equitable legal system. The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for individual rights and the proper balance between government authority and personal freedoms.