[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000067","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/68\/emoluments-clause\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EEmoluments Clause\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article I, Section 9, Clause 8\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENo Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EArticle VI of the Articles of Confederation\u0026nbsp;was the source of the Constitution\u2019s prohibition\u0026nbsp;on federal titles of nobility and the so-called\u0026nbsp;Emoluments Clause. The clause sought to shield\u0026nbsp;the republican character of the United States\u0026nbsp;against corrupting foreign influences.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe prohibition on federal titles of nobility\u2014reinforced by the corresponding prohibition\u0026nbsp;on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10\u0026nbsp;and more generally by the republican Guarantee\u0026nbsp;Clause in Article IV, Section 4\u2014was designed to\u0026nbsp;underpin as well the republican character of the\u0026nbsp;American government. In the ample sense James\u0026nbsp;Madison gave the term in \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E No. 39, a\u0026nbsp;\u201crepublic\u201d was \u201ca government which derives all its\u0026nbsp;powers directly or indirectly from the great body\u0026nbsp;of the people, and is administered by persons\u0026nbsp;holding their offices during pleasure for a limited\u0026nbsp;period, or during good behavior.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ERepublicanism so understood was the\u0026nbsp;ground of the constitutional edifice. The prohibition\u0026nbsp;on titles of nobility buttressed the structure\u0026nbsp;by precluding the possibility of an aristocracy,\u0026nbsp;whether hereditary or personal, whose members\u0026nbsp;would inevitably assert a right to occupy the leading\u0026nbsp;positions in the state.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFurther, the prohibition on titles complemented\u0026nbsp;the prohibition in Article III, Section\u0026nbsp;3, on the \u201cCorruption of Blood\u201d worked by\u0026nbsp;\u201cAttainder[s] of Treason\u201d (i.e., the prohibition\u0026nbsp;on creating a disability in the posterity of an\u0026nbsp;attained person upon claiming an inheritance\u0026nbsp;as his heir, or as heir to his ancestor). Together\u0026nbsp;these prohibitions ruled out the creation of certain\u0026nbsp;caste-specific legal privileges or disabilities\u0026nbsp;arising solely from the accident of birth.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn addition to upholding republicanism in\u0026nbsp;a political sense, the prohibition on titles also\u0026nbsp;pointed to a durable American social ideal. This\u0026nbsp;is the ideal of equality; it is what David Ramsay,\u0026nbsp;the eighteenth-century historian of the American\u0026nbsp;Revolution, called the \u201clife and soul\u201d of republicanism.\u0026nbsp;The particular conception of equality\u0026nbsp;denied a place in American life for hereditary distinctions\u0026nbsp;of caste\u2014slavery being the most glaring\u0026nbsp;exception. At the same time, however, it also\u0026nbsp;allowed free play for the \u201cdiversity in the faculties\u0026nbsp;of men,\u201d the protection of which, as Madison\u0026nbsp;insisted in \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E No. 10, was \u201cthe first\u0026nbsp;object of government.\u201d The republican system\u0026nbsp;established by the Founders, in other words,\u0026nbsp;envisaged a society in which distinctions flowed\u0026nbsp;from the unequal uses that its members made of\u0026nbsp;equal opportunities: a society led by a natural\u0026nbsp;aristocracy based on talent, virtue, and accomplishment,\u0026nbsp;not by an hereditary aristocracy based\u0026nbsp;on birth. \u201cCapacity, Spirit and Zeal in the Cause,\u201d\u0026nbsp;as John Adams said, would \u201csupply the Place of\u0026nbsp;Fortune, Family, and every other Consideration,\u0026nbsp;which used to have Weight with Mankind.\u201d Or\u0026nbsp;as the Jeffersonian St. George Tucker put it in\u0026nbsp;1803: \u201cA Franklin, or a Washington, need not the\u0026nbsp;pageantry of honours, the glare of titles, nor the\u0026nbsp;pre-eminence of station to distinguish them. . . .\u0026nbsp;Equality of rights . . . precludes not that distinction\u0026nbsp;which superiority in virtue introduces among the\u0026nbsp;citizens of a republic.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESimilarly, the Framers intended the Emoluments\u0026nbsp;Clause to protect the republican character\u0026nbsp;of American political institutions. \u201cOne of the\u0026nbsp;weak sides of republics, among their numerous\u0026nbsp;advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to\u0026nbsp;foreign corruption,\u201d Alexander Hamilton wrote\u0026nbsp;in \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E No. 22. And in \u003Cem\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/em\u003E\u0026nbsp;No. 84, he stated, \u201cThis may truly be denominated\u0026nbsp;the cornerstone of republican government;\u0026nbsp;for so long as they are excluded there can never be\u0026nbsp;serious danger that the government will be any\u0026nbsp;other than that of the people.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe delegates at the Constitutional Convention\u0026nbsp;specifically designed the clause as an antidote\u0026nbsp;to potentially corrupting foreign practices\u0026nbsp;of a kind that the Framers had observed during\u0026nbsp;the period of the Confederation. Louis XVI\u0026nbsp;had the custom of presenting expensive gifts to\u0026nbsp;departing ministers who had signed treaties with\u0026nbsp;France, including American diplomats. In 1780,\u0026nbsp;the King gave Arthur Lee a portrait of the King\u0026nbsp;set in diamonds above a gold snuff box; and in\u0026nbsp;1785, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar miniature\u0026nbsp;portrait, also set in diamonds. Likewise, the\u0026nbsp;King of Spain presented John Jay (during negotiations\u0026nbsp;with Spain) with the gift of a horse. All\u0026nbsp;these gifts were reported to Congress, which in\u0026nbsp;each case accorded permission to the recipients\u0026nbsp;to accept them. Wary, however, of the possibility\u0026nbsp;that such gestures might unduly influence\u0026nbsp;American officials in their dealings with foreign\u0026nbsp;states, the Framers institutionalized the practice\u0026nbsp;of requiring the consent of Congress before one\u0026nbsp;could accept \u201cany present, Emolument, Office,\u0026nbsp;or Title, of any kind whatever, from . . . [a] foreign\u0026nbsp;State.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ELike several other provisions of the Constitution,\u0026nbsp;the Emoluments Clause also embodies the\u0026nbsp;memory of the epochal constitutional struggles\u0026nbsp;in seventeenth-century Britain between the forces\u0026nbsp;of Parliament and the Stuart dynasty. St. George\u0026nbsp;Tucker\u2019s explanation of the clause noted that \u201cin\u0026nbsp;the reign of Charles the [S]econd of England, that\u0026nbsp;prince, and almost all his officers of state were\u0026nbsp;either actual pensioners of the court of France,\u0026nbsp;or supposed to be under its influence, directly,\u0026nbsp;or indirectly, from that cause. The reign of that\u0026nbsp;monarch has been, accordingly, proverbially disgraceful\u0026nbsp;to his memory.\u201d As these remarks imply,\u0026nbsp;the clause was directed not merely at American\u0026nbsp;diplomats serving abroad, but more generally\u0026nbsp;at officials throughout the federal government.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Emoluments Clause has rarely been litigated.\u0026nbsp;The D.C. Circuit Court in \u003Cem\u003EU.S. ex rel. New\u0026nbsp;v. Rumsfeld\u003C\/em\u003E (2006) dismissed a claim by a U.S.\u0026nbsp;soldier who alleged that the required wearing of a\u0026nbsp;United Nations\u2019 patch and cap violated the clause.\u0026nbsp;The appeals court upheld the District Court\u2019s\u0026nbsp;decision in 2004 that Congress had exercised its\u0026nbsp;power of \u201cConsent\u201d under the clause by enacting\u0026nbsp;the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which\u0026nbsp;authorizes federal employees to accept foreign\u0026nbsp;governmental benefits of various kinds in specific\u0026nbsp;circumstances.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Emoluments Clause has been interpreted\u0026nbsp;and enforced through a long series of\u0026nbsp;opinions of the Attorneys General and by less\u0026nbsp;frequent\u0026nbsp;opinions of the Comptrollers General.\u0026nbsp;A recent debate has emerged regarding the applicability\u0026nbsp;of the clause to the Nobel Peace Prize,\u0026nbsp;which is awarded by a committee elected by the\u0026nbsp;Storting (the Norwegian Parliament). Three sitting\u0026nbsp;Presidents have been awarded the prize: Theodore\u0026nbsp;Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack\u0026nbsp;Obama. President Roosevelt waited until he left\u0026nbsp;office to accept the prize and even then submitted\u0026nbsp;the monetary prize to Congress for consent.\u0026nbsp;However, after President Obama was awarded the\u0026nbsp;Nobel Prize in 2009, the Office of Legal Counsel\u0026nbsp;argued that the Emoluments Clause was not a\u0026nbsp;bar to acceptance of the prize because it was not\u0026nbsp;awarded by a \u201cforeign state.\u201d The Office argued\u0026nbsp;that the Nobel Committee had grown politically\u0026nbsp;independent from the Parliament over time.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, the Office contended that historically\u0026nbsp;all federal officeholders awarded the prize\u0026nbsp;received it without congressional consent. President\u0026nbsp;Obama accepted the award in 2009 and\u0026nbsp;donated the monetary prize to various charities\u0026nbsp;without seeking congressional consent.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIt is also argued that the Emoluments Clause\u0026nbsp;is implicated when U.S. officials take teaching or\u0026nbsp;speaking positions at foreign universities. During\u0026nbsp;the Clinton Administration, the Office of Legal\u0026nbsp;Counsel reasoned that the clause was not violated\u0026nbsp;when two scientists at NASA were employed at a\u0026nbsp;foreign public university but the university made\u0026nbsp;employment decisions independent of the foreign\u0026nbsp;government (citing a similar 1986 opinion by\u0026nbsp;then Deputy Assistant Attorney General Samuel\u0026nbsp;Alito).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Emoluments Clause has also been\u0026nbsp;applied to private citizens who serve on federal\u0026nbsp;advisory committees. The Office of Legal Counsel\u0026nbsp;wrote in 1993 that professors serving on the\u0026nbsp;Administrative Conference of the United States\u0026nbsp;could not accept any payment from a foreign government\u0026nbsp;or university. The Office subsequently\u0026nbsp;wrote opinions that retreated from this expansive\u0026nbsp;view, arguing that many federal committee members\u0026nbsp;do not occupy \u201cOffices of Profit or Trust.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIt is also questioned whether the clause\u0026nbsp;applies to Members of Congress. In 2009, Senator\u0026nbsp;Edward Kennedy received an honorary knighthood\u0026nbsp;from Queen Elizabeth II, and although\u0026nbsp;there is no indication that he sought consent\u0026nbsp;from Congress, he received a standing ovation\u0026nbsp;from lawmakers when the announcement of his\u0026nbsp;award was made.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Robert_Delahunty.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.stthomas.edu\/law\/faculty\/bios\/delahuntyrobert.htm\u0022\u003ERobert Delahunty\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Associate Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000067-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000067-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000067-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000067-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EApplicability of Emoluments Clause to Employment of Government Employees by Foreign Public Universities\u003C\/i\u003E, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 13 (1994)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EApplicability of the Emoluments Clause to Non-Government Members of ACUS\u003C\/i\u003E, 17 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 114 (1993)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EGifts from Foreign Prince\u003C\/i\u003E, 24 Op. Att\u0027y Gen. 116 (1902)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMemorandum for the Counsel to the President, from David Barron, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EApplicability of the Emoluments Clause and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act to the President\u0027s Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize\u003C\/em\u003E\u0026nbsp;(Dec. 7, 2009), http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/olc\/2009\/emoluments-nobel-peace.pdf\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGary J. Edles,\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003EService on Federal Advisory Committees: A Case Study of OLC\u0027s Little-Known Emoluments Clause Jurisprudence\u003C\/em\u003E, 58 Admin. L. Rev. 1 (2006)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EPresident Reagan\u0027s Ability to Receive Retirement Benefits from the State of California\u003C\/i\u003E, 5 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 187 (1981)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E2 Ronald D. Rotunda \u0026amp; John F. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure\u0026nbsp;\u00a79.18 (5th ed. 2012)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EZephyr Teachout, \u003Cem\u003EGifts, Offices, and Corruption\u003C\/em\u003E, 107\u0026nbsp;Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 30 (2012)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EEugene Volokh, \u003Cem\u003EDoes Senator Kennedy Need Congressional\u0026nbsp;Permission for His Knighthood?\u003C\/em\u003E, The Volokh\u0026nbsp;Conspiracy (Blog) (Mar. 4, 2009 1:07 PM), at\u0026nbsp;http:\/\/www.volokh.com\/2009\/03\/04\/does-senator-kennedy-need-congressional-permission-forhis-knighthood\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJay Wexler, The Odd Clauses (2011)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000067-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EU.S.\u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003Eex rel.\u003C\/em\u003E\u0026nbsp;New v. Rumsfeld, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000067-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000072\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EState Title of Nobility\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000083\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECompensation\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000119\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPunishment of Treason\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000118\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ETreason\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000127\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EGuarantee Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]