The Reports of My Death Were Greatly Exaggerated: Tillman Responds to the Legal Historians Amicus Brief in CREW v. Trump
Decl of SB Tillman, Lecturer (Exh D), in Amicus Curiae Scholar SB Tillman’s & Proposed Amicus Curiae Jud Edu Project’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, CREW v Trump, 1:17-cv-00458-GBD (SDNY Sept 19, 2017) (Daniels, J) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), Dkt No 85-5, 2017 WL 7795997
28 Pages Posted: 21 Sep 2017 Last revised: 1 Aug 2018
Date Written: September 19, 2017
In an amicus brief (supporting Defendant President Trump) submitted to this Court (Southern District of New York), my counsel included the following footnote:
See Report on the Salaries, Fees, and Emoluments of Persons Holding Civil Office Under the United States (Feb. 26, 1793), in 14 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (“PAH”), 157, 157–59 (1969). The editors of PAH marked this document “DS,” meaning “document signed,” which indicates that this document was the original signed by Hamilton. The original Hamilton-signed document, on which the PAH reproduction is based, remains in the vaults of the National Archives & Records Administration (Record Group #46). An excerpt of the original Hamilton signed document is available. Amicus notes that an entirely different document (but bearing a similar name) can be found in American State Papers (“ASP”). See List of Civil Officers of The United States, Except Judges, With Their Emoluments, For the Year Ending October 1, 1792, in 1 American State Papers/Miscellaneous 57 (1834). The document in ASP was not signed by Hamilton. The undated ASP document was drafted by an unknown Senate functionary. Unlike Hamilton’s manuscript, the record in ASP includes the President and Vice President. Both documents are probative of the legal meaning of Office . . . under the United States as used in the Senate order. But the two documents are not equally probative.
I stand entirely behind the above footnote: behind every sentence, every phrase, every word, and every syllable. I have made no mistake, intentional or inadvertent. I retract nothing, and I do not intend to retract anything.
Recently, my amicus brief and scholarship has been criticized by the Legal Historians Brief, other academics, some litigators, and by the press. Here I respond. This document is my declaration submitted as an exhibit to a motion responding to the Legal Historians Brief.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation