Georgetown Center for the Constitution

Examining Founding Era records to conclude that the definition of “emolument” in the Foreign Emoluments Clause is wider in scope than its usage in the other constitutional emoluments provisions, such as the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

Arguing that the Framers’ concerns about potentially corrupting forces of undue influence, both at home and abroad, led them to include the Compensation Clause and the Emoluments Clauses in the Constitution.

Arguing that the Foreign Emoluments Clause’s applicability to the President is not clear since the Framers chose to mention the President in the Domestic Emoluments Clause but not in the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

Documenting the drafting history of the Emoluments Clauses at the Constitutional Convention.

Showcasing Alexander Hamilton’s belief that the cap on the presidential salary would be both a ceiling and floor to prevent the legislature from attempting to control the President through his compensation.

Arguing that the history of the Emoluments Clauses and the interpretation of those Clauses over the years support a textual reading of the clause that defines “emoluments” as any profit, gain, or advantage, including those gleaned from market-rate transactions.

Arguing that the Framers hoped for political leaders with civic virtue but drafted the Emoluments Clauses to safeguard public officials from temptation and corruption.

Looking to President George Washington’s business transactions as proof that business transactions for value are not encompassed by the term “emolument” as used in the Constitution.

Exploring the original meaning of “Emoluments” in the Constitution and identifying four common definitions of the term in Founding Era political discourse.

Arguing that the Framers drafted the Presidential Emoluments Clause to prevent the President from becoming overly dependent upon Congress or becoming susceptible to corruption by Congress or a particular state.

Arguing that the Framers’ decision to guarantee a fixed executive salary–without state interference–supports the conclusion that states cannot impose property qualifications on presidential candidates.

Arguing that the Framers’ concern with corruption led them to adopt several provisions in the Constitution that limit the opportunities for political leaders’ self-enrichment, including the prohibition on increasing a president’s compensation during his time in office.

Arguing that the Framers included Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 in the Constitution to shield Congress from presidential intrigue and corruption.