Senate Not Office of Trust
 |
James Joyner | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 |
Eugene Volokh’s readers wonder whether Senator Teddy Kennedy needs permission from Congress to accept a knighthood from England pursuant to article I, § 9 of the Constitution’s pronouncement that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” While conceding he’s no expert, he thinks not.
- Article II, § 1 provides that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” This strongly suggests that “Senator or Representative” and “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” are two different things.
- Article I, § 6, provides that “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” This likewise suggests that “Office under the United States” doesn’t include membership in Congress.
- There’s 1790s Senate precedent for the proposition that a Senator is not a “Civil Officer[] of the United States” for purpose of impeachment, though the question is not free of controversy.
So, there you have it: Even the Framers didn’t trust Congress.
Photo by Flickr user Dunechaser, used under Creative Commons license.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Senate Not Office of Trust
- Obama’s Nobel Unconstitutional?
- Senator Roland Burris
- Al Franken Won: Minnesota Supreme Court – Coleman Concedes
- Tancredo Calls for Illegal Raid on Illegal Immigrants
- Roland Burris Denied Senate Seat
- Sam Brownback to Withdraw from Race
- What is Torture?
- From Republic to Empire
- Post Office Too Big to Mail?
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
- Caption Contest Winners
- Breaking: Shootings at Fort Hood (Updated)
- Pentagon Expected To Ask For Supplementary War Funding. As Usual.
- Marking the Anniversary of the Embassy Seizure
Before the Droitetoids get all cranked up, it's an honorary knighthood (and not the real thing, so he won't becalled "Sir Teddy"). Some other Americans knighted:
Douglas Fairbanks Jr.
Bill Gates
Rudi Guiliani
Billy Graham
Alan Greenspan
J Edgar Hoover
Bob Hope (born in England but a US citizen)
Henry Kissinger
Andre Previn
Ronald Reagan
Norman Swarzkopf Jr.
Steven Spielberg
Kennedy, a drunken degenerate and seditious hard-left demagogue, is perhaps best known for his Chappaquiddick adventure. This entailed drunkenly driving into the drink while catting around with a woman other than his wife. Rather than trying to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne from the submerged car, he left her to die and didn't report the incident until ten hours later.
That is thanks to Van Helsing at Moonbattery.com.
It's not surprising that this individual, regardless of of his past personal life would be selected for honor in Socialist Western Europe.
You and I would still be sitting in the jailhouse, not waiting for Knighthood, but waiting for good-time to be released.
sam, were any of those people holding office at the time? If not (and many of them appear to have never held office), you're engaged in obfuscation of the issue.
Dave Schuler must be tied-up since he has not already pointed out that political office is beginning to resemble an hereditary entitlement.
There, I mentioned it for him.
Some other Americans knighted:
Douglas Fairbanks Jr.
etc..
etc..
And so, what is your point?
None of them were scummy slime bags like Ted Kennedy.
sam, were any of those people holding office at the time? If not (and many of them appear to have never held office), you're engaged in obfuscation of the issue.
Ah, you right if I was addressing the legal question, but I just posted the list to show that the honor, as bestowed on Americans, is not uncommon. But now that you've brought it up, Hoover was head of the FBI (1950) at time of his knighting, and Swarzkopf, although retired from active service, still retained his rank, if I'm not mistaken (although, I'll admit, being retired kind of fuzzes it up). As for Hoover, I can't find anything that indicates he had the consent of the Congress in any formal sense.
Ted Kennedy is not long to be amongst us.
I have never agreed with his political ideas, and his personal life has resembled a tapestry of bad personal decisions and ideas. He should be in jail.
Given the fallacies of State and Federal Law, he is still out and entertaining the people of Massachusetts and influencing National policy.
I can't think of many politicians who have committed such public and private indiscretions and then become honorary knights of the British empire.
Lay that sword on my shoulder...
sam, your point lacks a certain punch when delivered as J. Edgar Hoover as the role model.
But as to your larger point: No, I don't think Americans should accept honorary titles from British monarchs. I won't stay awake at night fretting about it, but if you believe in America as an exceptional creation, the idea of titles should be anathema.
Also I wonder, did these people read Huck Finn in high school?
If I were to throw dirt on Ted Kennedy it would be this: Clinging to your seat, well after you are able to fully perform the duties to your constituents (and to the Democratic Party at large) is either a sign of extremely high personal vanity or a lack of confidence in the country you have spent so much time administering. You are not indispensable.
sam, your point lacks a certain punch when delivered as J. Edgar Hoover as the role model.
Well, PD, if the point is about the "honor," you have a point. But I mentioned Hoover in the context of the technical question Eugene raised over at the VC, i.e., someone holding office under the United States, etc.
