In a publication in 2013, I wrote:
See Message from the President of the United States to the Two Houses of Congress at the Commencement of the First Session of the Twenty-Third Congress 258-59 (Washington, Gales & Seaton 1833) (reproducing January 22, 1834 letter from the Secretary of State to the President explaining, in summary fashion, the history of the Adams and Jackson medals and how they came into the possession of the State Department) . . . .
In a publication in 2016, Ambassador Eisen, Professor Painter, and Professor Tribe wrote:
See Message From The President Of The United States To The Two Houses Of Congress At The Commencement Of The First Session Of The Twenty-Third Congress 258–59 (Washington, Gales & Seaton 1833) (reproducing Jan. 22, 1834 letter from the Secretary of State to the President explaining the history of the Jackson medal and how it came into the possession of the State Department).
See also Norman Eisen (@NormEisen) on Twitter, definitive @mjs_DC takedown of nonsense that EC doesnt apply 2presidents (THX 4cite of our paper, which also makes these points) @tribelaw (Jan. 5, 2017, 11:36 AM) (bold added), http://tinyurl.com/jbjz6dh;
Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) on Twitter, The kind of analysis that tries to show, implausibly, POTUS is exempt from the Emoluments Clause is the kind that gives lawyers a bad name. (Jan. 5, 2017, 11:59 AM) (bold added), http://tinyurl.com/zpdopxu.
“Nonsense” and “Takedowns.” Exactly who or what is giving lawyers a bad name?
My prior post: Seth Barrett Tillman, Moving the Overton Window and Student Notes, The New Reform Club (Jan. 6, 2017, 7:09 AM). [here]
 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, 324 n.64 (2013), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1622441.