NOTICE & COMMENT Should Congress Impeach Obama for His Emoluments Clause Violations? Andy GrewalDecember 13, 2016 SHARE: My prior post explained how ordinary business transactions between foreign governments and the Trump Organization would not automatically create violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause regarding President-elect Trump. That post concluded that the term “emolument” refers only to payments made in connection with the performance of services for a foreign government (whether as an officer or employee), and does not refer to any conceivable payment. The prior post relied on Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel opinions, definitions in legal dictionaries, and so on. (For my full-length law review article on the relevant issues, please see here: The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Chief Executive.)
However, some commentators, most notably Professor Richard Painter (Minnesota) and Norm Eisen (Brookings Institution), have argued for a much broader definition of emolument. The legal basis for their interpretation remains unclear because they make no mention of Supreme Court opinions, OLC opinions, Comptroller General opinions, legislative enactments, or other legal authorities, but their article in The Atlantic defines emoluments as reaching “anything of value.” (Their longer Brookings Institution report, co-authored with Professor Larry Tribe, takes a similarly broad approach without citing or examining relevant authorities. See page 11.) This post explains how their interpretation, if accepted, would support the impeachment of President Obama.
To understand why this is so, one should note that the term “emolument” appears multiple times in the Constitution. For President-elect Trump, commentary has focused on the Foreign Emoluments Clause, but the Constitution also contains a Domestic Emoluments Clause. The Domestic Emoluments Clause provides, as relevant here, that the President shall receive a fixed compensation for his services, but “shall not receive . . . any other Emolument from the United States.” This clause guards against, among other things, the legislature compromising the President’s independence by offering him additional emoluments. See Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 73.
Under Eisen, Painter and Tribe’s definition of emolument, President Obama has violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause. The President’s financial disclosures reveal that he owns United States Treasury bonds, and that he has received interest payments from the United States. See Page 3 of 2015 Disclosures (reporting between $500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 of Treasury bonds held by Obama directly or through an IRA). The interest income paid by the United States to President Obama is not part of the fixed compensation attached to the Presidency. Consequently, if an emolument includes any payment, Obama’s receipt of interest income from the United States violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause. Under Eisen, Painter and Tribe’s definition of emolument, President Obama must be impeached.
But one might argue, for whatever reason, that interest income should be excluded from the definition of emolument. However, Professor Painter specifically points to payments from banks as a constitutional problem. See Mother Jones, Nov. 11, 2016 (Painter: “ayments from banks controlled by foreign governments would fall under the emoluments clause.”). And if interest income from the Chinese government is prohibited under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, it’s hard to see why interest income from the United States government would not be similarly prohibited under the Domestic Emoluments Clause. (For another instance where President Obama profited from U.S. government transactions, see USA Today, State Dept. buys $70K of Obama books (Oct. 26, 2011).)
How do I get in that Book Club? $$$$$$ Ghostwriter gets blame like that goofball that was kissed in the closet, couldn't fly to testify unless it was a book deal.
C'mon Jim I enjoy your blogs. Looking forward to the ....
"It is not a simple question. According to Indian culture parents love their childrens unti death. Parents love is bigger than few days of relationship love. In today modern world relationship (love) is like a chewing-gum. Chewed until the sweetness is over, after then it is spitted in form of breakups & divorces. How can we go against parents dicision only for a few days of relationship." From your Forum comments-
I am not religious but i will say one amazing thing in Hindu religion, there is no word defined for divorce in Hindi dictionary.
(I do not know your language or Hindi religion but I find it so interesting what other people fear. A Hindi woman's wrath will be passionately directed to the error - not the person I hope)
If you are selling or buying Kardashian-Style on Poshmark then don't post items on Sale from Rite-aid. ( Do not disturn sunhat) and * Miclee might own one.
Just saying, those older ladies buying wine and getting their meds will know it.
ashlander Blog Comments (3,804)
RE: A clear inside look at the dysfunctional Donald Trump and the roots of his dysfunctions.
We are Absolutely both right.