Category: Foreign Emoluments Clause

The debate over the Foreign Emoluments Clause took an interesting twist yesterday when the House Ethics Committee released this report (hat tip Paul Singer) from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) regarding Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam).

The relevant facts are as follows. Delegate Bordallo owns a residential property in Guam, which she has leased to the Japanese government since 1993, some 10 years before she was first elected to Congress. During the period of her congressional service, Bordallo renegotiated this lease on several occasions, but it does not appear there were any unusual or inordinate increases in the rent, and OCE found the “rental amount fell within a normal range for rental properties in the residential community.” OCE Rep. at 11.

(It should be noted that the OCE report addresses other allegations against Bordallo involving more obviously questionable conduct, but the first count against her is based solely on this ordinary market transaction with the Japanese government.)

According to OCE, Bordallo’s arrangement with the Japanese government may have violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. For the period looked at by OCE (2008-17), during which Bordallo has been serving in the House, she received about $800,000 in rent from the Japanese government. OCE explains that this rent may have constituted a prohibited “emolument”:

The U.S. Constitution prohibits federal employees from accepting “any” emolument of “any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” The House Ethics Manual advises that the emoluments clause should have the “broadest possible scope and applicability.” To this point, the House Ethics Manual unambiguously defines “emolument” to include any “profit, gain, or compensation for services rendered.” There is no exception or limitation under this definition in the House Ethics Manual for when the Member generates the profit from a fair market value commercial transaction.”

OCE Rep. at 12 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).

At the outset, we should note that the OCE assumes, without analysis, that a delegate is covered by the Foreign Emoluments Clause, i.e., that she holds an “office of profit or trust” within the meaning of that Clause. This assumption is perhaps understandable in light of the House Ethics Manual’s suggestion that the Clause applies to all federal officials, including members or employees of the House. See House Ethics Manual at 205. Delegates are not members, but for these purposes they can be regarded as employees of the House. Accordingly, OCE was correct in reading the Ethics Manual to say that the Clause applies to delegates.

As an original understanding of the Clause’s meaning, this is a dubious proposition, and Bordallo’s lawyers, in their response to the OCE report, rely heavily on the argument that she does not hold an “office of profit or trust” covered by the Clause. See Perkins Coie letter at 10-13 (July 3, 2017). Although there is a strong constitutional argument in support of this position (albeit not quite the one that Perkins Coie makes), under ordinary circumstances I think the Ethics Committee would give it short shrift. Accepting Bordallo’s position would mean that not only delegates but all House employees would be exempt from prohibitions of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a result that the Ethics Committee would find hard to swallow. Instead, the Committee could simply decide that the Ethics Manual effectively applies those prohibitions to all House personnel as a matter of ethics rules, thus obviating the need to decide the constitutional issue.

But in this case the Committee, or at least half the Committee, has a strong incentive to resolve Bordallo’s case without reaching the question of whether the rents she received from the Japanese government constitute “emoluments” within the meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. That’s because the latter issue presents squarely the question the Blumenthal v. Trump plaintiffs have raised in their lawsuit, contending that President Trump is violating the Clause by continuing to own interests in businesses which receive revenue or profits from foreign governments or instrumentalities. Thus, as I noted in a prior post, the plaintiffs assert the following proposition: If a federal officeholder (a) has a financial interest in a business and (b) that business derives revenues from foreign governments, then the officeholder receives prohibited emoluments within the meaning of the Clause. This is more or less precisely the proposition the OCE has endorsed in the Bordallo matter.

As it happens, the authorities that OCE cites in support of this proposition do not really substantiate it. All of them involve some sort of personal service that the officeholder is being paid to perform for a foreign government or instrumentality. None of them appear to involve rental or other investment income that an officeholder derives from foreign government sources.

Moreover, as Perkins Coie points out, adopting OCE’s broad reading of the Foreign Emoluments Clause would have rather dramatic consequences for the millions of federal personnel who are subject to it. See Perkins Coie letter at 14 (“[T]his question affects not simply Delegate Bordallo, but millions of retired military and federal employees, who are covered by the Clause, any yet might foreseeably engage in just this sort of commonplace household transaction.”). If merely generating income from fair market commercial transactions can constitute an “emolument,” there are a lot of people besides President Trump and Senator Blumenthal who could be affected.

Bordallo’s lawyers (not surprisingly) approach the parallels with Trump’s situation rather gingerly, but in a footnote they cite this blog post regarding the Trump case. Id. at 14 n.76. As the blog post observes:

One beginning word of caution:  while those who oppose Donald Trump will find attractive any argument that can be used to defeat him, this issue will affect many others as well.   While the Emoluments Clause might seem obscure to many, this provision is not at all obscure to the over 2 million military retirees and 2.8 million federal employees.  They are subject to the Emoluments Clause, and the issue of the Emoluments Clause could have consequences for federal employees and retirees.  For example, if the Trump Organization’s sales to foreign governments gives rise to an Emolument, this would also be true of a small veteran owned business that makes sales to foreign governments–which is not that rare in the government contracting world.

All this puts the House Ethics Committee in a difficult position. If it reaches the question of whether Bordallo was receiving “emoluments” from the Japanese government, its decision will have direct implications for the Trump case. This is a particular problem for the five Democratic members of the Committee, each of whom is a named plaintiff in Blumenthal v. Trump. If they stick with their litigation position, they will not only have to find against Bordallo, but they will potentially create problems for other members of Congress and countless federal employees who derive income in some way from foreign governments.

So what to do? In my next post I will have a suggestion.

Senator Richard Blumenthal is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, with his net worth being pegged at a minimum of $67 million according to a Roll Call analysis of his financial disclosure statements. (Because financial disclosures report within broad ranges, they do not permit an exact calculation; this article says the senator’s actual net worth is more like $104 million.)

In addition to being really rich, Blumenthal is the lead plaintiff in Blumenthal v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by members of Congress against President Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit alleges that Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (U.S. const., art. I, § 9, cl.8) because he “has a financial interest in vast business holdings around the world that engage in dealings with foreign governments and receive benefits from those governments.” Complaint ¶ 2. Because of this financial interest, plaintiffs allege, Trump “has accepted, or necessarily will accept, ‘Emolument[s]’ from ‘foreign State[s]’” within the meaning of the FEC. Id.

The Blumenthal plaintiffs therefore assert a simple legal proposition: If a federal officeholder (a) has a financial interest in a business and (b) that business derives revenue from foreign governments, then the officeholder receives prohibited emoluments within the meaning of the FEC. Thus, for example, because (a) Trump has a financial interest in Trump Tower in New York and (b) Trump Tower has at least two tenants owned by foreign states (a Chinese bank and the UAE’s Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority), Trump “has accepted, or necessarily will accept” prohibited emoluments when those tenants make their lease payments. Complaint ¶¶ 53-54. Continue reading “Is Senator Blumenthal Violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause?”

We may now turn to the question of whether the Framers might have had reason to exclude the president from the Foreign Emoluments Clause’s presumptive ban on accepting any “present” or “emolument” from a foreign power. Here we should start with an important distinction. I am not claiming that the exclusion of the president from the FEC would be an absurd result in the sense that it would justify departing from the plain meaning of the Constitution. Compare United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 487 (1868) (classic example of the absurd results doctrine is the law “’that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’ did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit”). If the plain meaning of the FEC excludes the president, I am satisfied that Professor Grewal’s explanation (discussed in my original post on this topic) would be sufficient to forestall operation of the absurd results doctrine.

If, however, the question is whether the meaning of the FEC is plain or, if plain, what that meaning is, then I think Professor Grewal falls short of offering a persuasive reason why the Framers might have decided not to restrict the president’s acceptance of foreign presents or emoluments. Grewal suggests first that the Framers’ concerns about foreign gifts and payments may have centered on appointed officers because only officers “like ambassadors . . . would make the type of extended visits abroad that could subject them to improper foreign influence.” Andy S. Grewal, The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Chief Executive, 102 Minn. L. Rev. __, *7 (forthcoming 2017).

At the outset, there is something less than a tight fit between this hypothesis and the language used in the FEC. After all, the Clause applies to all persons who hold any office of profit or trust under the United States. This language is not limited to officials likely to make extended trips abroad, but includes many officers with a largely or exclusively domestic focus (such as the Secretary of the Treasury and subordinate officials responsible for the public fisc, the Chief Coiner and other officers of the Mint, the Attorney General and district attorneys, postmasters and other officials involved in the postal system, and the entire federal judiciary, among others). If the Framers had wanted to limit the FEC to diplomatic officials likely to spend significant time abroad, they could have employed the language used elsewhere in the Constitution (“ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls”) to refer to such officials.

Common sense also suggests that foreign powers would have ample opportunity, and even greater motive, to offer the president gifts and payments (both of the somewhat above-board ceremonial kind or of the less savory surreptitious kind). For example, the president is charged by Article II with receiving ambassadors and other pubic ministers from foreign nations. See U.S. const., art. II, § 2. As the official ultimately responsible for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the president would certainly be expected to meet and correspond directly with foreign dignitaries, including heads of state, on a regular basis. Thus, the Framers would hardly have been surprised that U.S. presidents, beginning with George Washington, have been offered or received gifts from foreign governments or dignitaries. See, e.g., Seth Barrett Tillman, The Original Public Meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, 107 Nw. L. Rev. 180, 188-90 (2013) (citing examples).

It is true that U.S. ambassadors and other diplomatic officials were a particular concern of the FEC, due in large part to the European custom of giving gifts, sometimes of significant value, to visiting foreign diplomats. Because it was often diplomatically awkward to refuse such gifts, this is also likely why it was thought impractical to have an absolute ban on accepting them. See Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of “Emoluments” in the Constitution *40 (Feb. 5, 2017).

I am aware, however, of no evidence to suggest that the Framers were concerned exclusively with potential foreign corruption of diplomats or other officials who would be abroad for long periods. To the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence (some of which was discussed in my last post) that the Framers were equally if not more concerned about foreign corruption of the president.

For example, during the Philadelphia Convention’s consideration of whether the president should be impeachable, James Madison thought it “indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” II Farrand’s Documentary History of the Constitution 65. Madison warned specifically that the president “might betray his trust to foreign powers.” Id. at 66.

Gouverneur Morris, who had initially leaned against the president’s impeachability, pronounced himself persuaded by the debate to change his mind. He explained:

Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him. One would think the King of England well secured agst bribery. He has as it were a fee simple in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV.

Id. at 68-69 (emphasis added). Morris’s point seems to be that there is a greater chance that the president would choose his private interest over that of the country than would the King of England, who basically owns his country as private property, yet even the latter could be successfully bribed by a foreign power. Be that as it may, these remarks confirm that the Framers were attuned to the danger of a president coming to be “in foreign pay.” It would therefore be highly surprising had the Framers decided the president, of all executive branch officials, should not be subject to the FEC. See Saikrishna Banglore Prakash, Why the Incompatibility Clause Applies to the Office of the President, 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar 35, 41-42 (2009) (particularly in light of Framers’ knowledge of incidents such as payments from Louis XIV of France to Charles II of England, reading FEC “as if it permitted the President to receive foreign bribes, without any congressional oversight or check, makes little sense”).

It may be recalled from my last post that the anti-Federalists were dissatisfied with the Constitution’s protections in two respects relevant to our discussion. The first is that the FEC is not an absolute prohibition on foreign titles and payments, but allows for their acceptance with congressional consent. The second is that the president is simply too tempting a target for foreign influence and corruption because of the powers the Constitution concentrates in his hands. George Mason reflected both of these concerns in the Virginia ratifying convention when he pointed out that the president “may, by consent of Congress, receive a stated pension from European potentates.”

Responding to Mason’s argument, Edmund Randolph (who, like Mason, had been a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention) contended:

There is another provision against the danger, mentioned by the honorable member, of the President receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered, he may be impeached. If he not be impeached, he may be displaced at the end of four years. By the 9^th section of the 1^st article, “no person, holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people;” and by the 1^st section of the 2d article, his compensation is neither to be increased nor diminished during the time for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not, during that period, receive any emolument from the United States or any of them. I consider, therefore, that he is restrained from receiving any present or emolument whatever. It is impossible to guard better against corruption.

3 Elliot’s Debates 486.

This colloquy shows that Mason and Randolph, though disagreeing on the adequacy of the FEC and other constitutional provisions for this purpose, agree on two key points: (1) the president receiving emoluments or presents from foreign powers is a danger against which safeguards are needed; and (2) the FEC’s strictures do apply to the president.

Randolph’s remarks also suggest that the FEC and the Presidential Compensation Clause (art. II, § 1, cl. 7) are complementary restrictions that limit the president to a fixed salary and ensure that he does not receive any other emoluments from the United States, any state or any foreign power. One might quibble with Randolph on the grounds that the FEC is not an absolute prohibition, thus theoretically permitting the president to receive foreign emoluments or presents with congressional permission. In general, however, his remarks confirm, pace Professor Grewal, that the Framers did not see the presidency for some reason as raising concerns only as to domestic emoluments. Indeed, it is not obvious to me why anyone, with or without insight into the Framers’ deliberations, would think that the president would be singled out for restriction on domestic emoluments, while simultaneously excluded from a general prohibition on foreign emoluments.

Finally, we may address Grewal’s suggestion that the Framers might have been particularly concerned about potential foreign corruption of officers who, unlike the president, did not receive a fixed salary and were dependent on transaction-based payments for their livelihood. Andy S. Grewal, The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Chief Executive, 102 Minn. L. Rev. __, *9 (forthcoming 2017). This idea strikes me as getting things a little backwards. The president’s compensation, unlike that of any other executive branch official, is constitutionally fixed because of the singular importance of his office and the need to ensure that Congress cannot financially reward or punish him during his term of office. Likewise, he is prohibited from receiving any other emoluments from the United States or any state to prevent any financial dependence or partiality on his part. It would be utterly implausible to think that the Framers would be less concerned about the need to insulate the president from foreign financial influence, or that they would have been more worried about foreign corruption of customs collectors or immigration officials.

Federal judges also have constitutional protection for their salaries, which cannot be diminished during their time in office. In comparison to the president, there is little reason to think that they would either be in regular contact with foreign powers, or that foreign powers would have reason to influence them. Yet federal judges are not exempted from the prohibitions of the FEC.  It is hard to see how it would make sense to exempt the president.

A more plausible explanation for excluding the president would relate to the requirement in the FEC to obtain congressional consent. It is at least possible to imagine that some could think it improper to require the president, as the head of a separate branch of government, to seek such consent whenever a foreign government offered him something “on the order of a snuffbox, a portrait, or a gold chain,” as Professor Currie puts it. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 1789-1801 281 (1997). Rather than requiring the president to seek congressional permission, it would be left to his judgment whether to accept a foreign gift or an emolument personally or on behalf of the United States. If he should accept a bribe or an improper gift or payment that Congress considered to amount to a high crime or misdemeanor, he would be subject to impeachment.

Tillman suggests something along these lines in his comments to my blog post of 3-13-17. While stating “I frankly admit that I do not know” why the Framers might have exempted “federal elected officials” (including the president) from the FEC, Tillman proposes that the Framers might have “relied on elected officials to act like fiduciaries” and/or been concerned about giving another body the power to make judgments concerning “those at the apex of authority.” In the context of the president and the FEC, this would mean that the Framers may have preferred to rely on the president’s judgment regarding the acceptance of foreign presents and emoluments, instead of requiring him to submit to Congress’s judgment on such matters.

There is some surface plausibility to the “no congressional permission slip” explanation, but it is wrong for at least three reasons. First, as Professor Grewal noted regarding his own explanation, “no contemporaneous materials advance this understanding.” In other words, it’s a nice theory, but it is made up out of whole cloth. (I can say this since I made it up, and I think Tillman would agree as well). There is no evidence that any Framers (or anyone else) actually subscribed to it.

Second, this explanation overlooks an important aspect of the congressional consent requirement. This requirement doesn’t just restrict the foreign presents and emoluments that can be accepted; it also ensures that offers of such presents and emoluments are disclosed. If the recipient of a foreign gift or payment discloses it publicly, this is in itself some assurance that it is not improper and will not influence the recipient. If the gift or payment is kept secret, on the other hand, its discovery will excite suspicion even if it was not actually a bribe.

Had the Framers intended to permit the president to be the judge of his own emoluments, they would have provided for a mechanism for disclosure of his decisions. For example, they could have required that he inform Congress, rather than seek its permission. Simply omitting the president from the FEC would be a recipe for misunderstanding and suspicion, which would likely have led to wholly unnecessary and predictable charges of corruption.

Finally, and most importantly, while it is possible that some people might have subscribed to my theory, it is inconceivable that everyone would have done so. As we have seen, any suggestion of a loophole in the FEC that would have allowed the president to receive presents or emoluments (much less titles of nobility) from foreign powers without congressional permission or oversight would have excited tremendous opposition. The fact that there was no controversy on this point can only be explained in two ways: (1) the existence of a presidential loophole in the FEC was publicly known or discussed, and yet no one objected; or (2) everyone understood or assumed, and no one (at least publicly) disputed, that the president was in fact covered by the FEC. The overwhelming evidence is in favor of the latter over the former.

 

There has been much debate about Professor Zephyr Teachout’s claim that the Foreign Emoluments Clause and other constitutional provisions show that the Framers were “obsessed” with corruption. Compare Zephyr Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341, 405 (2009) with Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of “Emoluments” in the Constitution 59-60 (Feb. 5, 2017) (arguing that the Framers balanced their concerns with potential corruption against other competing values) and Seth Barrett Tillman, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle, 107 Nw. L. Rev. 399, 404-10 (2012) (arguing that Teachout has overstated her claim about the Framers’ “obsession” with corruption). Whatever the right word for the Framers’ concerns about corruption, a stronger one is probably needed to describe their hostility (and that of the founding generation) toward titles of nobility. This is particularly true in comparison with modern sensibilities, which regard financial corruption and conflicts of interest with at least as much dismay as did the Framers, but are more likely to view titles of nobility as an amusing irrelevance.

Some flavor of the republican opposition to titles of nobility can be found in the Georgia Constitution of 1777, Article XI of which provided:

No person shall be entitled to more than one vote, which shall be given in the county where such person resides, except as before excepted; nor shall any person who holds any title of nobility lie entitled to a vote, or be capable of serving as a representative, or hold any post of honor, profit, or trust in this State, whilst such person claims his title of nobility; but if the person shall give up such distinction, in the manner as may be directed by any future legislation, then, and in such case, he shall be entitled to a vote, and represent, as before directed, and enjoy all the other benefits of a free citizen.

(emphasis added). Here the holder of a title of nobility was not only disqualified from serving in the legislature and holding a “post of honor, profit, or trust,” but even from exercising his right to vote.

As discussed in my last post, the Articles of Confederation did not go quite that far, but it barred both the national and state governments from issuing titles of nobility and prohibited any person holding an “office of profit or trust” under the United States or any state from accepting titles of nobility (as well as presents, emoluments or offices) from a foreign power. The Constitution largely copied these prohibitions, but, as we saw, permitted acceptance with congressional consent and did not apply to state officeholders.

Ratification

The Federalists pointed to the Constitution’s provisions on titles of nobility as an essential protection of republican government. Madison remarked in Federalist No. 39: “Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the state governments, and in its express guarantee of the republican form to each of the latter.” (It should be noted that the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government to the states, which did not appear in the Articles, may in part explain why it was not considered necessary to cover state officeholders in the Foreign Emoluments Clause).

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 85, likewise listed the “absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility” as one of “securities to republican government” provided by the Constitution and explained in Federalist No. 84:

Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.

The assurance of an “absolute and universal exclusion,” however, was not quite accurate. With respect to foreign titles of nobility, the Constitution’s restrictions applied only to holders of offices of profit or trust under the United States. Moreover, unlike the Articles, the Constitution allowed acceptance of such titles of nobility (as well as presents, emoluments and offices from foreign powers) with congressional consent.

This latter change did not go unnoticed in the state ratifying conventions. John Hancock submitted a resolution to the Massachusetts convention asking that the words “without the Consent of Congress” be struck from the Foreign Emoluments Clause so that “there would be an absolute prohibition on federal officeholders’ accepting any emolument, office, or title from a foreign country or King.” Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788 197 (2010). The Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island ratifying conventions all asked for amendments making this change. The Virginia and North Carolina conventions chimed in for a general amendment banning exclusive or hereditary emoluments, privileges or offices of any kind, which presumably would have banned all foreign titles among other things. See Jol A. Silversmith, The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility, 8 Southern Cal. Interdisciplinary L. J. 577, 578 & nn. 11, 13 (1999). Finally, the New Hampshire ratifying convention asked for an amendment that “Congress shall at no Time consent that any Person holding an Office of Trust or profit under the United States shall accept any Title of Nobility or any other Title or Office from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.”

Clearly titles of nobility were a major concern of both Federalists and anti-Federalists, and there was considerable scrutiny during ratification of whether the FEC was sufficiently strict in this regard. It seems inconceivable that these concerns would not have extended to a presidential exemption from the FEC, if anyone thought that such an exemption might exist. To the contrary, the presidency would seem to present the most compelling example of the potential corruption of titles of nobility in general and foreign titles in particular. (It should be noted again that Professor Grewal’s explanation of why the Framers might have chosen to exempt the president from the FEC does not address titles of nobility).

Unquestionably the Framers were worried about potential foreign influence over the presidency, and it was to prevent such influence that they required the president to be a natural born citizen. See U.S. const., art. II, § 1, cl. 5. This requirement is inextricably tied to fears about presidential monarchism. As St. George Tucker explained:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 1, Note D, Part 7 (1803)(emphasis added). See also Akhil Reed Amar, Natural Born Killjoy (2004) (natural born citizen requirement was designed to “ease anxieties about foreign nobility,” to “reject all vestiges of monarchy,” and to prevent a scenario where “a foreign earl or duke would cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue and use his European riches to buy friends and power on a scale that no American could match.”); cf. Keith E. Whittington, Originalism, Constitutional Construction, and the Problem of Faithless Electors *17 (Mar. 4, 2017), Arizona L. Rev. forthcoming (“But the founders were familiar enough with the intrigues of the feudal courts of Europe to anticipate the possibility of foreign powers or domestic cabals attempting to influence the national legislature to install some willing princeling as president”).

The anti-Federalists, however, were not persuaded that the Constitution contained enough safeguards against presidential monarchism and foreign influence. At the Virginia ratifying convention, for example, William Grayson warned that ‘[t]he president had too much power, which would make it worth the while of foreign countries to interfere in his election—as they had done when Poland chose a new king in the early 1760s.” Maier, supra, at 286. Patrick Henry likewise warned that the president “could easily become a king.” Id. at 266. But no one claimed that the FEC exempted the president from the restrictions on receiving titles of nobility or other benefits from foreign powers.

Most telling in this regard were the remarks of George Mason, who like Grayson cited the Polish example as evidence of likely foreign tampering with the presidency:

Will not the great powers of Europe, as France and Great Britain, be interested in having a friend in the President of the United States? And will they not be more interested in his election than in that of the king of Poland? The people of Poland have a right to displace their King. But do they ever do it. No. Prussia and Russia, and other European powers, would not suffer it. This clause will open a door to the dangers and misfortunes which the people of Poland undergo. The powers of Europe will interpose, and we shall have a civil war in the bowels of our country, and be subject to all the horrors and calamities of an elective monarchy. This very executive officer may, by consent of Congress, receive a stated pension from European potentates.

 3 Elliott’s Debates 484 (emphasis added). Here Mason clearly implies that the president is subject to the FEC and therefore requires consent of Congress to receive a “stated pension from European potentates.” See Natelson, supra, *12 n. 25 (noting that Mason in this speech “apparently assumes that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the president”). Mason’s remarks are particularly significant because (1) he was a Framer and (2) as an anti-Federalist, he had every incentive to identify any possible risks in the Constitution. (I mean, he even suggests the Russians might interfere in a presidential election!) The fact that he assumes that the FEC applies to the president suggests an interpretation to the contrary did not even cross his mind.

Indeed, nowhere in the ratification debates or the writings of the anti-Federalists does it appear that anyone suggested that the president might be exempt from the FEC. Given that many thought the FEC was already too lenient in allowing the acceptance of titles of nobility and other benefits with congressional consent, it is simply incredible that the opponents of the Constitution would not have objected to the president being exempted, which they certainly would have portrayed as a virtual invitation to foreign interference and bribery. The near universal revulsion with which titles of nobility were regarded would have made the idea that the president was free to accept foreign titles a particularly strong anti-Federalist talking point. Continue reading “The President and the Purposes of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (Part II): Titles of Nobility”

I promised to return to the subject of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and so today I will start a series of posts on the purposes of that Clause and whether it makes sense for the president to be excluded from its terms. This first post will set the stage with a little background.

To be clear, the question here is not merely whether the ostensible purposes of the FEC would be better served by including the president. Rather it is whether the exclusion of the president would be so discordant with those purposes that (1) the educated reader of the Constitution in 1787-89 would have assumed the Clause encompassed the president and/or (2) any suggestion of the president’s exclusion could have been expected to provoke controversy and opposition. If either or both of these is true, then silence regarding the president’s alleged exclusion should be taken as evidence that (1) such exclusion was either (a) not intended by the Framers or (b) not communicated by the Framers to anyone else; and (2) such exclusion was not widely understood by the ratifiers or the general public.

And silence there was. To my knowledge, prior to Professor Tillman’s raising the issue in 2009 or so, no one had ever expressly claimed or directly implied the president was excluded by the FEC. No president, no member of Congress, no executive branch lawyer, no constitutional scholar. No one. By contrast, there had been a number of statements expressly affirming or clearly assuming the president’s inclusion, including by Framers/ratifiers (Edmund Randolph and George Mason), by executive branch lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel, by statute (the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act) and by occasional comment of constitutional writers and scholars. Perhaps this is a relative paucity of affirmations over a period of two centuries, but on the other hand there was little reason for anyone to expressly consider and affirm what no one had disputed or denied.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that no one had offered an explanation as to why the Framers might have excluded the president from the FEC’s provisions. Indeed, Tillman himself, although he has intimated reasons why the president might have been excluded from other constitutional provisions, such as the Disqualification Clause (see here at page 92 n.83), has not explained to my recollection why the Framers would have wanted the president to be exempt from the FEC’s presumptive ban against accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” And there is no obvious reason (at least obvious to me) why the president would be exempted from a provision founded, in Justice Story’s words, “in a just jealousy of foreign influence of every sort.” 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1346.

Fortunately, Professor Grewal has attempted to fill this void. In a recent article focused primarily on other aspects of the FEC, he notes:

Scholarly debates show that whether the Foreign Emoluments Clause treats the President as a U.S. Officer remains an open question. At first glance, it may seem implausible that the Constitution would exempt any member of the government from a provision designed to prevent corruption. Yet the Domestic Emoluments Clause, which also guards against corruption, applies only to the President and not generally to U.S. Officers, or even to the Vice President. This suggests that the Framers may have drafted each emoluments clause to address their principal concerns, without attempting to guard against corruption of every type imaginable.

Regarding their principal concerns, the Framers may very well have believed that only appointed officers, like ambassadors, would make the type of extended visits abroad that could subject them to improper foreign influences. The President, they may have thought, would remain stateside to tend to the needs of the nation, and his potential corruption would be best addressed through the Domestic Emoluments Clause. Under this view, the exclusion of the President from the Foreign Emoluments Clause would be entirely consistent with the Framers’ design.

Andy S. Grewal, The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Chief Executive, 102 Minn. L. Rev. __, **7-9 (forthcoming 2017).

Grewal also notes that the Framers might have been more concerned about the potential for corruption among those officers of the United States who did not receive fixed compensation, but were dependent on “potentially uncertain streams of income” such as charging transaction-based user fees for services like processing of immigration papers. Id. at *9. Because the Constitution guarantees the president a fixed salary, Grewal suggest that the Framers may have been less concerned about the possibility the president would be susceptible to foreign corruption. He acknowledges, however, that “no contemporaneous materials advance this understanding.” Id.

With this potential explanation in mind, let’s take a closer look at what the FEC proscribes. We begin with the text:

No 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 Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

U.S. const., art. I, § 9, cl. 8.

One thing to note from this language is that the U.S. officeholder is not only restricted from receiving any present or emolument, but two items not discussed by Professor Grewal. One is any title, including if not necessarily limited to any title of nobility, which appears to be a central focus of the Clause. (More on this later.)

The other is any “office.” Presumably an office conferred by a foreign government could impose duties to be performed on behalf of that government. Acceptance of such an office would seem to be manifestly improper for any federal officeholder, much less the president of the United States. For present purposes, however, I will assume that the FEC primarily contemplates ceremonial offices, which would simply be another way of conferring an emolument or title. Therefore, I will not give separate consideration to this restriction.

The language of the FEC must be understood in light of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation, which contained a closely related provision from which the FEC is derived:

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign state; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

This provision of the Articles combines two different concepts. The first sentence limits the ability of states to conduct their own foreign relations. The last sentence prohibits the United States or any state from issuing titles of nobility. The middle sentence links these seemingly unrelated subjects by prohibiting any person holding “any office of profit or trust” under the United States or any state from accepting a title of nobility or other benefit from a foreign power.

The drafters of the Constitution broke this provision into two components. The FEC addresses prohibitions on the United States, forbidding the issuance of titles of nobility at the federal level and federal officeholders from accepting, without congressional consent, titles of nobility or other benefits from foreign powers. A separate provision, which immediately follows the FEC, contains a series of prohibitions on the states, including forbidding them from entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation and from issuing any title of nobility. See U.S. const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1.

There are two observations of interest here. The first is that the FEC uses the same term, “office of profit or trust” under the United States, as was used in the Articles. Since there was no president under the Articles, there may have not been a pre-existing understanding as to whether the term embraced the office of president.

Second, unlike the Articles, the Constitution does not forbid state officeholders from accepting titles of nobility, emoluments, etc. from foreign powers. The reason for the change is unclear. One possibility is that the Framers decided to permit such acceptance with the consent of Congress, but thought it improper or impractical to require state officeholders to seek such permission (imagine Congress being inundated with requests from state officials, who at that time would have been much more numerous than federal officers). Alternatively or in addition, they may have thought it inappropriate or unnecessary for the federal constitution to regulate the conduct of state officeholders.

It is also possible that the prohibition with respect to state officeholders in the Articles was considered necessary because of the particular structure of that system. The primary national institution under the Articles was the Confederation Congress, and delegates to that Congress, who were “annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct,” arguably functioned more like state delegates or commissioners to an interstate convention than like ordinary legislators. This is speculation, but the drafters of the Articles may have thought that covering “offices of profit or trust” under any state was necessary in order to ensure that delegates to the Confederation Congress were subject to the prohibition.

With this background, in my next post I will turn to the purposes of the prohibition on titles of nobility.

Over at The Originalism Blog, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman cites a new piece of evidence for his position that the President does not hold an office “under” the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. (For prior discussions of Professor Tillman’s views on this see here, here and here), Specifically, he points to the fact that President Washington “accepted a framed full-length portrait of Louis XVI from the French ambassador.”

This acceptance, Tillman suggests, would have been unconstitutional if Washington had been an officer under the United States at the time because Article I, section 9, clause 8 provides:

No 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.

Because the portrait was evidently a “present” from the French government, it could not be accepted by any officer under the United States without the consent of Congress. Tillman contends that no such consent was sought or given; thus, Washington must either have (a) violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause or (b) believed that it was inapplicable to the president because his office was not “under the United States.”

Note that if the latter were true, it would mean that Washington not only believed the Clause inapplicable to the office of the president, but he thought this conclusion so inescapable and non-controversial that it was unnecessary to seek any formal opinion or make any record of his decision. It would also suggest he was unconcerned with the implication that the president could accept an office or title of nobility from a foreign government.

These assumptions are hard to indulge. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that either Washington or any of his contemporaries interpreted the phrase “office under the United States” to exclude the presidency. This is not a natural or self-evident reading of the constitutional text, as illustrated by the fact that the conventional wisdom has long been to the contrary. Thus, we would have to believe that Washington acted on the basis of an original public meaning that was crystal clear to him, yet somehow vanished without a trace.

Even if we assume, for argument’s sake, that Washington could have read the text in the way Tillman proposes, it would still seem unlikely that he would have accepted the Louis XVI painting on that basis. Surely Washington would have been as concerned about violating the spirit as the letter of the Constitution. Article II expressly bars the president from receiving, during his term, “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” Would not Washington have hesitated before interpreting the Foreign Emoluments Clause to permit the receipt of emoluments from a foreign government?

Even more importantly, it is hard to believe that Washington would have interpreted the Foreign Emoluments Clause to allow the president to receive an office or a title of nobility from a foreign government. The Constitution explicitly prohibits both federal and state governments from granting titles of nobility to anyone. Although it does not prohibit private citizens from receiving titles of nobility from foreign governments, this should not be taken as condoning the practice. William Rawle notes that “[a] salutary amendment, extending the prohibition to all citizens of the United States, and disenfranchising those who infringe it, has been adopted by some of the states; but not yet by a sufficient number.” W. Rawles, A View of the Constitution 120 (2d ed. 1829). It does not strike me as likely that Washington’s sensibilities were much different, or that he would have lightly interpreted the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the manner Tillman suggests.

For these reasons I would look for another explanation for Washington’s acceptance of the painting from the French ambassador. Perhaps he believed that he did have congressional consent for receiving such an item. Perhaps he did not believe, at the time he accepted the painting, that it was a personal gift (though he later took it to Mount Vernon). I would be reluctant to conclude that President Washington intentionally or negligently violated the Constitution, but even this seems more likely than the suggested alternative.