,
3 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
#Emoluments: @AndyGrewal and I have opposing views on the clauses, but I agree with his bottom line: It is odd that the 2d Cir found that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the “zone of interests” of the clauses - without ruling on the meaning or purposes of the clauses.
@AndyGrewal 2/ It turns out that @gauthamrao & I have written an article addressing the "zone of interest" question, explaining the history of the clauses in the context of British taxation, colonial monopolistic policy, & unfair competition when govts play favorites.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
@AndyGrewal @gauthamrao 3/ There is a valid question as to how the "zone of interest" test applies to these constitutional clauses.
But if a court decides that a plaintiff's claim is within that zone, surely it would have to address the meaning of the word "emolument" & original purpose of the clauses.
But if a court decides that a plaintiff's claim is within that zone, surely it would have to address the meaning of the word "emolument" & original purpose of the clauses.
