A Response to Professor Victoria F. Nourse’s Reclaiming the Constitutional Text from Originalism: The Case of the Foreign Emoluments Clause

43 Pages Posted: 21 Feb 2018  

Seth Barrett Tillman

National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUI Maynooth) - Faculty of Law

Date Written: February 18, 2018

Abstract

This paper is a response to Professor Victoria F. Nourse’s Reclaiming the Constitutional Text from Originalism.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has stated that the position that the President is not covered by the Foreign Emoluments Clause is “a silly argument.” Professor Nourse has stated that that position “verg[es]-on-silly.” Although I think that both the Dean and Professor are incorrect, and that both display an inability to thoughtfully comment on ideas with which they disagree (or fail to understand) — quite an unappetizing state of affairs for academics — between the two, Dean Chemerinsky and Professor Nourse, I strongly prefer the former. The Dean, at least, is saying exactly what he means. I suspect Nourse’s use of “verging” is not quite what she actually meant, and if it is what she meant, more is the pity.

Either way, I think they are both wrong. Here is why.

Suggested Citation

Tillman, Seth Barrett, A Response to Professor Victoria F. Nourse’s Reclaiming the Constitutional Text from Originalism: The Case of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (February 18, 2018). 59 South Texas Law Review 237 (2017) -- Part IV. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125806 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3125806

Seth Barrett Tillman (Contact Author)

National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUI Maynooth) - Faculty of Law ( email )

Ollscoil na hÉireann, Má Nuad
New House (#306)
Maynooth, County Kildare
Ireland
(353) (0) 1474-7216 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://law.nuim.ie/staff/mr-seth-barrett-tillman

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
89
Abstract Views
458
PlumX