Talk:Foreign Emoluments Clause/Archive 1

Untitled
The Constitution of Vermont of July 8, 1777 states: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family or set of men, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish, government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.

Doesn't this suggest that the clause is more than simply about titles and also relates to any benefits that may come from the government, particularly, those not conducive to the general welfare of the nation?

That benefits that stem from service to the nation, or property given to support the nation, can only be with a given equivalent?

That, all owing service, may be allowed some benefit, in context of helping to support the stability and security of the nation, but not beyond?

NantucketNoon (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Move
I would like to move this article to "Title of Nobility Clause". That seems to be a more common name for it, and corresponds more closely to this article's focus. See:

Shenon, Philip and Greenhouse, Linda. “Washington Talk: Briefing; The King and the Joker”, New York Times (1988-08-17): "This is the title of nobility clause, which provides: 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States'."

Wood, Diane. Our 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century World. 80 New York University Law Review 1079, 1105 (2005): "Debate [over the Constitution's] meaning is inevitable whenever something as specific as the ... Titles of Nobility Clause is not at issue."

Ferrylodge (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What gifts did Washington receive?
I'm assuming that one of the two is the bastille key, which he received from Lafayette (who I believe was stateless at the time since France was in the middle of a revolution) but I have no idea what the other one was. Does anyone have any clue? Or even better than a clue a source? --Opcnup (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama?
Would it be appropriate to put in a section about how President Obama has violated this Constitutional clause? Void burn (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama did receive gifts on several occasions but there is blanket congressional approval in place for small gifts (like the dresses that Blair brought to Sasha and Malia). If there are any other "violations" then a source should be posted. --Opcnup (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Receipt of gifts from foreign dignitaries is common practice in diplomacy, and has been carried on by Presidents of both parties. They are generally small gifts for the same reason that most anti-bribery legislation permits small gifts - "tokens of appreciation" are distinct from incentives (or in President Trump's case, possible opportunities) to gain favour in a way that creates conflicts of interest. The President is expected to put the American people foremost in diplomatic engagements, and small tokens do not endanger that. The Clause is to prevent receipt of either significant gifts or foreign titles and land in a way that would encourage a President (or other public officer) to have to consider those things against American priorities.
 * Of course, if there are reliable sources to confirm any significant instances of violation by Presidents, then by all means include them. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Current Events - May 20, 2017
Hey guys, I'm new so sorry for any jimmies that might get rustled. Some Czech lawyer named Yopsie already tried to drop the hammer on me with no explanation, but I see there might be ways to improve my contribution about May 20, 2017.

It's not my opinion that these events occurred. The straight up facts are that he accepted gifts, on camera, from a King, without Congressional approval and it was broadcast internationally today. I pulled relevant summaries of 3 national news articles (one of which i don't really like the title of, so I'll go change it). But if you have journalistic suggestions to better my copy, tone, style, etc. I'm all ears.

Are there particular sources you guys prefer for literally currently happening events? I have tons of choices of US news outlets showing the actual video, but nothing solidly making the connection to this Clause yet. That is my contribution. Ifatree (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality of sources
It's not appropriate to use an opinion piece in the New York Times as a source in an article on the Constitution. We should use sources who are Constitutional scholars. Seth Tillman's (ref 16) assertion that this clause doesn't apply to elected officials is absurd when you imagine a case in which the President of the United States accepts the title Duke of Somerset and starts traveling to the UK to sit in the House of Lords. --Tysto (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It may seem absurd, but it's a notable enough opinion to appear in the Times. Here's the writer's bio. It looks like he could be considered a legitimate expert. His view is given very minimal coverage here. Felsic2 (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Felsic2. NY Times is an opinion by a unqualified third-party. As an example, even Ted Cruz should be considered unqualified person for this purpose. While he did argue in the Supreme Court for the Second Amendment, his opinion would be as the lawyer in the case, but his opinion *as a US senator* should be discounted.
 * A qualified opinion, is that by an authoritative body, ie. DOJ or DOJ person(s).
 * If broader opinions are needed, it should be a separate article discussing any contentious issues. Jessemonroy650 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Both Zephyr Teachout and Seth Barrett Tillman are a legitimate constitutional scholars, but Tillman holds some extreme views on this clause, particularly when he says that he doesn't believe it applies to the President, in the face of long-held practice and discussion by Hamilton in the Federalist. Now that we have three parallel lawsuits on this issue, I am developing a Project page/Comparison/Bibliography in User Space. As so many of the cited scholars are actually involved in the lawsuits, it looks to be an exciting time for constitutional law. Dakleman (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump
Trump's business dealings may be a violation of this clause. (NY Times). I think we should keep an eye on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's also this study article from Eisen, Painter, and Tribe. Elizabeth Warren and other democratic Senators have also said they will introduce legislation to enforce the Emoluments Clause. I'm fine moving slowly on this to make sure any additions are informative, fair, and will hold to scrutiny. I do think the breadth of recent coverage so far warrants at least a mention of what has been reported with respect to Trump. Knope7 (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu, your political bias has been clearly shown throughout all of your wiki edits. It's a disgrace and a shame you are an admin on here. I've went ahead and removed the Trump sections because they are clearly partisan edits and have no merit or proper fact based sources. Do not add them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.94.17.209 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your changes and have added the Trump sections back. These sections are backed up by several different reliable sources and are not partisan. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)