{"title":"《海外薪酬条款》:特朗普总统会因为宣誓而违法吗?","authors":"D. Weisberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2888201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution) provides that those holding federal office shall not accept “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any…foreign state.” It has been argued, most prominently and forcefully by Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, that a Pres. Trump, because of his far-flung business interests, would be in violation of the Clause merely by virtue of his taking the oath. This conclusion is incorrect, because it is bottomed on a mistaken understanding of the meaning of the word “emolument”. The income that would continue to flow to a Pres. Trump after he takes his oath of office will not arise from the office of, or his employment as, president, even if that income is from a foreign state. Therefore, that income cannot reasonably be said to be an emolument. Moreover, if one were to accept Prof. Tribe’s mistaken understanding of “emolument,” it would follow that Pres. Obama, since his own oath-taking, has been continually in violation of the Presidential Compensation Clause (Article II, Section 1).","PeriodicalId":205352,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Foreign Emoluments Clause: Will Pres. Trump Be in Violation by Virtue of Taking the Oath?\",\"authors\":\"D. Weisberg\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2888201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution) provides that those holding federal office shall not accept “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any…foreign state.” It has been argued, most prominently and forcefully by Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, that a Pres. Trump, because of his far-flung business interests, would be in violation of the Clause merely by virtue of his taking the oath. This conclusion is incorrect, because it is bottomed on a mistaken understanding of the meaning of the word “emolument”. The income that would continue to flow to a Pres. Trump after he takes his oath of office will not arise from the office of, or his employment as, president, even if that income is from a foreign state. Therefore, that income cannot reasonably be said to be an emolument. Moreover, if one were to accept Prof. Tribe’s mistaken understanding of “emolument,” it would follow that Pres. Obama, since his own oath-taking, has been continually in violation of the Presidential Compensation Clause (Article II, Section 1).\",\"PeriodicalId\":205352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2888201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2888201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
《外国报酬条款》(美国宪法第一条第9款)规定,担任联邦公职的人不得接受“来自任何……外国的任何礼物、报酬、职务或任何形式的头衔”。劳伦斯·h·特赖布(Laurence H. Tribe)教授的观点最为突出和有力,他认为,特朗普总统由于其广泛的商业利益,仅仅因为他宣誓就职就违反了该条款。这个结论是不正确的,因为它是建立在对“薪酬”一词含义的错误理解之上的。在特朗普总统宣誓就职后,他将继续获得的收入不会来自他担任总统的职位,也不会来自他作为总统的工作,即使这些收入来自外国。因此,这种收入不能合理地说成是报酬。此外,如果我们接受特赖布教授对“薪酬”的错误理解,那么奥巴马总统自自己宣誓就职以来,就一直在违反总统薪酬条款(第二条第一款)。
The Foreign Emoluments Clause: Will Pres. Trump Be in Violation by Virtue of Taking the Oath?
The Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution) provides that those holding federal office shall not accept “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any…foreign state.” It has been argued, most prominently and forcefully by Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, that a Pres. Trump, because of his far-flung business interests, would be in violation of the Clause merely by virtue of his taking the oath. This conclusion is incorrect, because it is bottomed on a mistaken understanding of the meaning of the word “emolument”. The income that would continue to flow to a Pres. Trump after he takes his oath of office will not arise from the office of, or his employment as, president, even if that income is from a foreign state. Therefore, that income cannot reasonably be said to be an emolument. Moreover, if one were to accept Prof. Tribe’s mistaken understanding of “emolument,” it would follow that Pres. Obama, since his own oath-taking, has been continually in violation of the Presidential Compensation Clause (Article II, Section 1).