"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Sunday, April 23, 2017

A Bibliography on the Foreign Emoluments Clause

Tillman’s journal articles discussing the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the terms “office” and “officer” as used in the Constitution include:

(a) Seth Barrett Tillman, Who Can Be President of the United States?: Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Problem of Statutory Qualifications, 5(1) Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies 95–121 (2016) (peer reviewed), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2679512;
(b) Seth Barrett Tillman, Why Professor Lessig’s “Dependence Corruption” Is Not a Founding-Era Concept, 13(2) Election L.J. 336–45 (2014) (peer reviewed), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2342945;
(c) Seth Barrett Tillman, Originalism & The Scope of the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause, 33 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 59–126 (2014) (invited contribution), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2484377;
(d) Seth Barrett Tillman, Interpreting Precise Constitutional Text: The Argument for a “New” Interpretation of the Incompatibility Clause, the Removal & Disqualification Clause, and the Religious Test Clause–A Response to Professor Josh Chafetz’s Impeachment & Assassination, 61 Clev. St. L. Rev. 285–356 (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1622441;
(e) Seth Barrett Tillman, Closing Statement, The Original Public Meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause: A Reply to Professor Zephyr Teachout, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 180–208 (April 2, 2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2012803;[1]
(f) Seth Barrett Tillman, Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 399–421 (2012), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2182078;
(g) Seth Barrett Tillman, Why Our Next President May Keep His or Her Senate Seat: A Conjecture on the Constitution’s Incompatibility Clause, 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y 107–41 (2009); 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar 1–34 (2008), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1099355;
(h) Seth Barrett Tillman, Opening Statement, Why President-Elect Obama May Keep His Senate Seat After Assuming the Presidency, in Seth Barrett Tillman & Steven G. Calabresi, Debate, The Great Divorce: The Current Understanding of Separation of Powers and the Original Meaning of the Incompatibility Clause, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 134, 135–40 (2008), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1292359;[2] and,
(i) Seth Barrett Tillman, Closing Statement, An “Utterly Implausible” Interpretation of the Constitution: A Reply to Professor Steven G. Calabresi, in Seth Barrett Tillman & Steven G. Calabresi, Debate, The Great Divorce: The Current Understanding of Separation of Powers and the Original Meaning of the Incompatibility Clause, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 134, 146–53 (2008). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1292334.[3]

Tillman’s lesser publications on these subjects include:

(a) Zephyr Teachout & Seth Barrett Tillman, Common Interpretation—The Foreign Emoluments Clause: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, in The Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center 2016), http://tinyurl.com/jxro4o9;
(b) Seth Barrett Tillman, Matters of Debate—The Foreign Emoluments Clause Reached Only Appointed Officers, in The Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center 2016), http://tinyurl.com/zgbdtso;
(c) Seth Barrett Tillman, Room for Debate, Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don’t Apply to Presidents, The NY Times, Nov. 18, 2016, 10:41 AM, http://tinyurl.com/jpbhom5;
(d) Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, Oath of Officers, 15(3) Claremont Review of Books 11, Summer 2015, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2623473;
(e) Seth Barrett Tillman, Member of the House of Representatives and Vice President of the US: Can Paul Ryan Hold Both Positions at the Same Time?, Jurist–Forum, Aug. 23, 2012, http://jurist.org/forum/2012/08/seth-barrett-tillman-vice-presidency.php;
(f) Seth Barrett Tillman, Loyola University of Chicago Law School’s Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium, Six Puzzles for Professor Akhil Amar (Nov. 1, 2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173899;
(g) Seth Barrett Tillman, Novel Questions of Pure Law and DiscoveryThe New Reform Club (Mar. 27, 2017, 6:58 AM), http://tinyurl.com/lpjudfk;
(h) Seth Barrett Tillman, Business Transactions For Value Are Not “Emoluments”The New Reform Club (Mar. 19, 2017, 3:15 AM), http://tinyurl.com/kos696z;
(i) Seth Barrett Tillman, The Presidential Compensation Clause & Trump’s “No New Deals” MottoThe New Reform Club (Dec. 22, 2016, 9:10 AM), http://tinyurl.com/z8nu44g; and,
(j) Seth Barrett Tillman, Congressional Research Service Issues Revised Guidance on the Foreign Emoluments ClauseThe New Reform Club (Dec. 1, 2016, 1:09 AM), http://tinyurl.com/hfezaef.

Addendum: Accepted Paper: Seth Barrett Tillman, Essay, Business Transactions and President Trump’s “Emoluments” Problem, 40(3) Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming circa 2017–2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2957162. 


For responses to Tillman’s publications see generally: 

(a) Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, Titles of Nobility and the Foreign Emoluments Clause–§ 9.18 n.12 (5th ed. Supp. 2017);
(b) William Baude, Constitutional Officers: A Very Close Reading, Jotwell (July 28, 2016) (peer reviewed) (reviewing Tillman’s publications on “office” and “officer”), http://tinyurl.com/kv6kdun;
(c) Steven G. Calabresi, Rebuttal, Does the Incompatibility Clause Apply to the President?, in Seth Barrett Tillman & Steven G. Calabresi, Debate, The Great Divorce: The Current Understanding of Separation of Powers and the Original Meaning of the Incompatibility Clause, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 134, 141-45 (2008), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1294671;
(d) Steven G. Calabresi, Closing Statement, A Term of Art or the Artful Reading of Terms?, in Seth Barrett Tillman & Steven G. Calabresi, Debate, The Great Divorce: The Current Understanding of Separation of Powers and the Original Meaning of the Incompatibility Clause, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 134, 154-59 (2008), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1294671;
(e) Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, Response, Why the Incompatibility Clause Applies to the Office of President, 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y 143 (2009); 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar 35 (2008), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1557164;
(f) Zephyr Teachout, Rebuttal, Gifts, Offices, and Corruption, 107  
Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 30 (2012), http://www.northwesternlawreview.org/online/gifts-offices-and-corruption;
(g) Zephyr Teachout, Closing Statement, Constitutional Purpose and the Anti-Corruption Principle, 108  Nw. U. L. Rev. Online 200 (2014), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2383385;
(h) Zephyr Teachout, Matters of Debate—The Foreign Emoluments Clause, in The Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center 2016), http://tinyurl.com/lxdjjl2; and,

(i) Zephyr Teachout, Room for Debate, Trump’s Foreign Business Ties May Violate the Constitution, The NY Times, Nov. 17, 2016, 5:06 PM, http://tinyurl.com/l8qma26

Seth


Citation: Seth Barrett Tillman, A Bibliography on the Foreign Emoluments ClauseThe New Reform Club (Apr. 23, 2017, 4:27 AM), http://tinyurl.com/m4v4rfo



[1] Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has been renamed Northwestern University Law Review Online.
[2] University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra has been renamed University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online.
[3] Id

1 comment:

Tom Van Dyke said...

So, are Laurence Tribe and his unprincipled band of Democrat troublemakers going to win standing with their phony plaintiffs, who rather admitted to the WaPo they have suffered no harm from foreign delegations [maybe] staying in Trump hotels?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/two-plaintiffs-join-suit-against-trump-alleging-breach-of-emoluments-clause/2017/04/17/1d4aaa70-238a-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.357bf4211643

“I joined this lawsuit because the president is taking business away from me and others with unfair business practices that violate the Constitution,” Phaneuf said in a written statement. She declined to comment when asked if she could cite an example where a Trump hotel had taken her business away.

What a fraud Tribe, et al., are, especially since Hillary via the Clinton Foundation is likely guilty of dozens of Emolument Clause violations.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/06/newt-gingrich/gingrich-hillary-clinton-broke-law-foreign-clinton/