Talk:Ineligibility Clause

Separation of Powers
The clause is about self-dealing not separation of powers. I have read about a dozen articles now and they all discuss Congress providing benefits for itself not congress working with other branches to provide benefits for itself. Congress is vested with the authority to grant payraises to the Cabinet. It does not need to work with other branches to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I see. The part dealing with the Saxbe fix does not deal with separation of Powers, but the latter part of the clause does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was ❌. No consensus. — A itias  //  discussion  00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This Clause is usually called the "Emoluments Clause." The name "Ineligibility Clause" is only used by a minority of writers: "The Emoluments Clause also has been referred to as the Ineligibility Clause by a minority of commentators." O'Connor, John. "The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution", 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995).

So, I'll request a move.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose, laregly due to the fact that Emoluments Clause and Emolument Clause already redirect to Title of Nobility Clause, and I think a move would cause greater confusion than the current arrangement. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole point here is that both Emoluments Clause and Emolument Clause should take readers to the article about members of Congress who accept positions when they have increased the salaries for those positions. That's the usual meaning of "Emolument(s) Clause".  These wikilinks should not redirect or otherwise take readers to a Wikipedia article about Titles of Nobility.  "Emoluments Clause" and "Nobility" gets 130 hits whereas "Emoluments Clause" and "Salary" gets 3350 hits.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. WP:NC reads in part Titles should be brief without being ambiguous (my emphasis). Assuming this article and Title of Nobility Clause are both accurate, this is a classic case where Emoluments Clause should be a disambiguation even if there are only two targets to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree for this reason: sometimes hatnotes are sufficient instead of disambiguation pages. This is such a case.  The article about members of Congress who accept positions (when they have increased the salaries for those positions) should be titled "Emoluments Clause" and there should be a hatnote at the top pointing readers to the article about Title of Nobility Clause.  See Disambiguation, which says that there are "two methods of disambiguating".  Also, here's a quote from WP:NC: "Avoid giving an article an ambiguous title (unless it is unlikely that the other meanings deserve their own article)."  The parenthetical is key. Ferrylodge (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here: The article name, and the means of disambiguation. Even if we were to accept that hatnote disambiguation is appropriate (and I don't), we'd still reject Emoluments Clause as the title for either article, on the grounds of ambiguity, particularly considering that there are perfectly good, unambiguous names available. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The present situation is no different from an article like Moscow. We could re-name that article Capital of Russia but there really is no need.  Look how ambiguous the term "Moscow" is.  Why is "Emoluments Clause" any different?  The vast majority of usages are with reference to the subject of the present article, right?   I'm really surprised that there is any controversy about this.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No analogy IMO. The reason Moscow is used as an article name is that there is a primary meaning of the term. There seems to be no primary meaning of Emoluments Clause. Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary topic for the term “Emoluments Clause” is clearly Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, regarding salary increases. That term is much more used for that topic than for Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 regarding Titles of Nobility.


 * As mentioned above, "Emoluments Clause" and "Nobility" get 130 Google hits whereas "Emoluments Clause" and "Salary" get 3350 Google hits. Also, as mentioned above, an unrebutted reliable source states that only “a minority of commentators" use the term “Ineligibility Clause” for the clause about salary increases.  O'Connor, John.  "The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution", 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995).


 * Likewise, there are 47 Google News hits for "Emoluments Clause" and "Salary" but only two Google News hits for “Emoluments Clause” and “Nobility”.


 * Similarly, Google Scholar gives 43 hits for "Emoluments Clause" and "Salary”, but only two hits for “Emoluments Clause” and “Nobility”. According to Primary_meaning, Google web, news, scholar, or book searches may help determine a primary meaning.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For the reasons stated. A hatnote is not good enough to clarify. Either Emoluments Clause or Emolument Clause should be a dab (the other to be a redirect to the dab) to Ineligibility Clause and Title of Nobility Clause. -Rrius (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for the record, I have no problem with turning "Emoluments Clause" into a disambiguation page. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 02:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. News commentary and analysis on the Saxbe Fix for recent appointments uniformly, as far as I saw, called this the "Emoluments Clause". Jonathunder (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment there are many ineligibility clauses around the world, why is the US one sitting here? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the clause in question does not use the term "ineligible" or any variant thereof.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Are any of the others notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, or at least a redirect to the article on the document that contains the clause? Examples? Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Emoluments Clause
The article was recently edited to say that "The term 'Emoluments Clause', more accurately refers to Article I, Section 9, Clause 8." I believe this is false. Please provide a cite.

Also, why delete a reliable source that says: "The Emoluments Clause also has been referred to as the Ineligibility Clause by a minority of commentators." O'Connor, John. "The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution", 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995)?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)