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 Discovery, The 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” Motto, The 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 Clause, The 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 Clause, The 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.