Abstract. The constitutional case supplies what the university case could not: a founding documented in enough contemporaneous detail that the gap between the idealized origin and the operational norms can be measured rather than merely alleged. This paper names that gap, sets the emoluments quarrel inside it, and argues that the quarrel is a memory dispute before it is a legal one, because it turns on which past is admitted as the measure. A founding held as pure origin scores an officeholder’s self-enrichment as a fall from a height. A founding held as always-mixed scores the same conduct against a messier baseline. The two furnishings were in place before the conduct occurred, before the suits were filed, and before any court considered the text. The paper declines to render a verdict on the modern controversy, and explains why declining is the position the theory requires rather than the position the theory permits it to evade.
4.1 — The Gap Named
Every founding has an idealized version and an operational one, and the distance between them is ordinarily invisible because the operational version leaves no record. The American constitutional founding is the exception. It left a record of extraordinary density: convention notes, ratification debates, private correspondence, contemporaneous newspaper polemic, the statute books and appropriation acts of the first Congresses, the diplomatic files, the account books of men who held office and did business at the same time. The gap can be seen. This is what makes it the right third case.
The idealized founding is familiar and needs little rehearsal. A generation of men, learned in the classical republican tradition, gathered to construct a government of laws. They understood that power corrupts, and they built against corruption—separated powers, enumerated limits, checks laid across ambition. They took office reluctantly, at cost to their fortunes, and they laid it down again. They were disinterested where disinterest was the whole point of the exercise, and their disinterest was itself the guarantee that the machine they built would run without them. What is required of us, on this account, is fidelity to what they established.
The operational founding is available in the same documents and is a different thing. The men who framed the government held public securities whose value the new government’s fiscal arrangements would determine.[^1] They speculated in western lands whose value federal policy would set. They accepted appointments from one another, held plural offices, distributed patronage among their kin, and understood patronage not as a scandal but as the ordinary mortar of political attachment. They fought a decade-long quarrel over the funding and assumption of the debt in which each party accused the other of corruption and each accusation had some purchase.[^2] They received diplomatic gifts. The government they built was administered, in its first decades, by a small class of men bound to one another by credit, marriage, and obligation, and the boundary between public trust and private advantage was in practice negotiated case by case rather than drawn in advance.
Two clarifications, because the temptation to misread this paragraph runs strongly in both directions.
First, the operational founding is not an exposé. Nothing above is disputed by serious historians of any persuasion, and nearly all of it was said openly at the time by the participants. Beard’s economic reading of the framers has been substantially qualified and in places refuted; that the framers had interests, knew they had interests, and argued about whose interests the Constitution served is not in the qualified portion.[^3]
Second, and more important: the operational founding does not embarrass the idealized one nearly as much as it first appears to, because the eighteenth century did not mean by corruption what we mean. Bailyn and Wood established, and Teachout has pressed into constitutional argument, that corruption in the founders’ usage was chiefly structural: a condition of dependency in which an officeholder’s private interest was linked to another’s will, so that his judgment was no longer his own.[^4] It did not require a bribe. It did not require a quid pro quo. It did not require that anyone be paid to do anything in particular. A pension from the Crown corrupted a member of Parliament whether or not he ever voted as the Crown wished, because the pension made him the sort of man whose vote could not be trusted to be his. Corruption was a description of a relation, not of a transaction.
That is the gap, and notice its shape. The founders were not more scrupulous than we are about the mingling of office and gain—by our transactional standard many of them were considerably less so. They were more alarmed than we are about the mingling of office and dependency, which our standard barely registers. The idealized founding remembers them as scrupulous by our lights. The operational founding shows them scrupulous by theirs, and the two scruples do not overlap where the storage assumes they do.
4.2 — The Emoluments Case Supplied
Into that gap the Constitution places two provisions.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause forbids any person holding an office of profit or trust under the United States, without the consent of Congress, to accept any present, emolument, office, or title from any king, prince, or foreign state (Art. I, § 9, cl. 8). The Domestic Emoluments Clause fixes the President’s compensation and forbids him to receive, during his term, any other emolument from the United States or from any state (Art. II, § 1, cl. 7).
Read the first clause against the structural understanding of corruption just described, and its logic is plain. It does not require proof that a gift purchased anything. It does not ask whether the officeholder’s judgment was in fact bent. It forbids the relation, on the ground that a man in that relation is no longer a man whose judgment belongs to the republic. The clause is prophylactic all the way down, and it is prophylactic because its framers believed that a public man’s integrity is not a thing he can guarantee by intending it.
Scripture had said as much, and said it to judges and kings rather than to presidents. Thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous (Ex. 23:8; cf. Deut. 16:19). The rule is not that a gift sometimes blinds. It is that a gift blinds, and that the blinded man is the last to know it, which is precisely why the taking is forbidden rather than the perverting. Moses’ charge to seek out able men who hate covetousness (Ex. 18:21) selects for a disposition, not for a record of clean transactions. Deuteronomy forbids the king to multiply silver and gold to himself (Deut. 17:17) without waiting to learn what he would do with it. And when Samuel laid down his office he did not say that his judgments had been sound. He said: Whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? (1 Sam. 12:3). He offered his hands, not his verdicts. The structural understanding of corruption is older than the Country Whigs by two and a half millennia, and the Constitution’s emoluments provisions are, whatever their framers knew of the pedigree, a late and partial statement of it.
Now the modern controversy. An officeholder retained ownership of a business enterprise whose customers included foreign states, foreign officials, and domestic governmental entities. Suits were brought alleging violation of both clauses. The suits raised, and never resolved, questions of standing, of remedy, of what counts as an emolument, and of whether the presidency is an office of profit or trust under the United States at all. They ended without a ruling on the merits; the Supreme Court vacated the judgments below as moot when the term of office ended.[^5]
What survives the mootness is the argument, and the argument divided along a line worth looking at directly. One party read emolument broadly, as any profit, gain, or advantage, so that ordinary commercial transactions with foreign states fell inside the clause; it read the clause’s purpose as prophylactic in the structural sense, and it argued that the presidency is manifestly an office of profit or trust.[^6] The other party read emolument narrowly, as compensation for services rendered in an office or employment, so that arm’s-length commerce fell outside; and it argued—this is the striking move—that “office . . . under the United States” was, in founding-era usage and in early practice, a term for appointed positions, not elected constitutional ones, and therefore never reached the President at all.[^7]
The second argument rests almost entirely on operational evidence. Its central exhibits are early presidential practice: the gifts Washington accepted from foreign sources without seeking congressional consent, and Jefferson’s acceptance of gifts likewise. If Presidents were covered, the argument runs, the first Presidents did not know it, and their conduct is the best available evidence of what the words then meant. The reply is that the exhibits are equivocal—that the donors’ status, the objects’ character, and the men’s own understanding of what they were doing are all contested—and that Congress’s practice of consenting to gifts for other officers cuts the other way.[^8]
Set the merits aside. Attend instead to what has happened to the argument.
One side is invoking an idealized founding—a republic constructed against corruption by men who understood corruption structurally—and is scoring the modern conduct against it.
The other side is invoking an operational founding—what the first officeholders actually did, without objection, in the years immediately after ratification—and is scoring the same conduct against that.
Both sides are appealing to the founding. Both are appealing to real evidence. And they are not appealing to the same founding, because there is no such thing as the founding to appeal to. There is a record, and there are furnishings of it.
4.3 — A Memory Dispute Before a Legal One
Here is the paper’s central claim, stated so it can be contested.
The emoluments quarrel is a memory dispute first and a legal dispute second. It looks like a dispute about the meaning of a word in a clause. It is a dispute about which past a body will admit as its measure, and the meaning of the word is where that prior dispute has surfaced.
Consider what would have to be true for the quarrel to be what it appears to be. Two parties would have to share a founding, disagree about what a clause in it meant, adduce evidence bearing on the meaning, and be moved by the evidence. Nothing of the sort has occurred. Each party has produced its evidence; each has read the other’s evidence and metabolized it without discernible movement; each finds the other’s position not merely wrong but unserious, and each is puzzled by the other’s imperviousness to considerations that seem to it decisive. This is the exact signature described in Paper 1, §1.4, and it is the same signature the fellowship’s schism displayed in Paper 2, §2.3 and the university’s curricular quarrels display in Paper 3, §3.4. Show the party of the idealized founding that Washington took gifts, and it will file the gifts as a minor irregularity in an otherwise settled origin, or contest their provenance. Show the party of the operational founding that the clause’s structural logic requires prophylaxis, and it will note that the framers wrote what they wrote and did what they did, and that the doing is the better guide.
Neither is being dishonest. Each is doing what a furnishing is for.
The constitutional case makes this visible in a way the other cases do not, because American constitutional argument is conducted almost entirely in the idiom of memory. The dominant interpretive methods of the last half-century—original public meaning, original intent, original expected application, and the several living-constitutionalist alternatives that define themselves against them—are all, whatever else they are, theories about how to store a founding.[^9] Originalism is the formal, disciplined, professionalized version of the first disposition: the founding is a revered origin, normative because it was there, and the interpreter’s office is stewardship. Living constitutionalism is the formal version of the second: the founding is one stage among others, its provisions written by men who knew less than we do about the world their words would govern, and the interpreter’s office is succession. This is not an insult to either. It is a description of what each is for, offered by someone who thinks the first has by far the better of the argument about what a written constitution is and who nevertheless declines to pretend that the first is exempt from what Paper 1 established about revered origins.
Because it is not exempt. A written constitution held as a revered origin generates the same pressure on memory that any revered origin generates: to smooth the contestation out of the founding, to resolve its ambiguities in the direction the present appeal requires, to remember the framers as having agreed about matters over which they were at each other’s throats. That pressure is not a defect in originalism as a theory. It is what the storage does to the men who use the theory, and no theory can be built that will spare its users their own furnishing. Rakove’s title made the point in two words: Original Meanings, plural, because the convention produced no single one and the ratifiers received no single one and the men who wrote the words did not agree about what they had written before the ink was dry.[^10]
Kammen documented the American practice of constitutional veneration—the document as sacred text, the framers as a species apart, the founding as an event that requires from citizens something structurally indistinguishable from piety.[^11] Levinson pushed further and asked whether constitutional faith is faith in a text or in a project, and noticed that the two require different foundings to be stored.[^12] Neither writer was hostile to the Constitution. Both were observing that a body which venerates its founding will furnish a founding worth venerating, and will do so without noticing, because—as §1.4 argued and as this cluster has now shown three times—the furnishing presents to the furnisher not as a premise but as a perception.
And here the Preacher’s first corrective lands where it landed in Papers 2 and 3. Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this (Eccl. 7:10). The citizen who asks how far the republic has fallen from its founders’ standard of public integrity has not established that the founders held the standard at the place he has set it. He has furnished a founding there, and is now requesting an account of a distance he laid out himself. His question is not a question. It is a verdict looking for a cause, and the Preacher’s charge against it is not that the answer is unavailable but that the enquiry was not wise.
The second corrective disarms the other party. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun (Eccl. 1:9). The rhetoric of advance in constitutional argument requires the premise that our circumstances are unprecedented—that the framers could not have contemplated a chief magistrate with a global commercial enterprise, an economy of this scale, a state of this complexity, and that their judgments are therefore inapplicable rather than merely inconvenient. Ecclesiastes will not grant it, and neither will the record. A magistrate whose private fortune depends on the favor of foreign powers is not a new thing under the sun. It is the oldest thing the emoluments clauses were written about, and it is the thing Samuel offered his hands against.
4.4 — The Two Furnishings in Play
Run the same conduct past both storages, and watch the verdicts arrive before the facts do.
The founding held as pure origin. Here the framers were men who had risked their fortunes and taken office at cost. They wrote a clause against foreign influence because they hated dependency, and they meant it comprehensively. Against this origin, an officeholder’s retention of an enterprise transacting with foreign states is a fall from a height. The vocabulary is the vocabulary of infidelity that Paper 1, §1.2 predicted: drift, capitulation, betrayal of what was established. The characteristic emotion is grief, and the grief is real. The characteristic blindness is equally real: this furnishing cannot register that the height was never occupied. It has no vocabulary for the framers’ own commerce, their own securities, their own land, their own gifts, and so those facts must be minimized, contested, or set aside as unrepresentative—which is to say, the furnishing must gild.
The founding held as always-mixed. Here the framers were interested men who built a government they expected to profit under, and who did profit under it. They wrote a clause against foreign titles and presents because they feared a particular eighteenth-century mechanism of royal influence, and the clause’s reach is whatever early practice shows it to have been, which is not far. Against this origin, the same conduct is scored against a messier baseline, and what it registers as is ordinary. The vocabulary is the developmental vocabulary §1.3 predicted: of its time, no longer applicable, anachronistic to press. The characteristic emotion is impatience with the pieties of the other side. The characteristic blindness: this furnishing cannot register that the framers meant their clause to reach further than their own conduct did, and that a standard is not refuted by the failure of the men who set it. It must therefore tarnish—must smooth the achievement out of the founding so that the founding becomes a place with nothing left to say to us.
Both furnishings are doing work for an expected future, in Koselleck’s sense, and the work is what keeps each stable under contradiction.[^13] A body expecting a restoration of public integrity requires a past in which the integrity existed; the requirement supplies the past. A body expecting that governance will go on as it has always gone on requires a past no better than the present; the requirement supplies that one too. In each case the horizon of expectation reaches back and arranges the space of experience, and the arranged past then goes on saying what the horizon needs it to say. Neither furnishing was built out of evidence. Neither will be dismantled by evidence.
I now do the thing the theory obliges me to do, and I want to name it as an obligation rather than as a dodge.
This paper renders no verdict on the modern controversy. It is not that the merits are unknowable, or that the two readings of the clause are equally strong, or that the contest is a matter of taste. It is that a paper whose thesis is the furnishing settles the verdict before the case is heard cannot then hand down a verdict on the case without offering the strongest possible evidence for its own thesis and the weakest possible evidence for its own honesty. The reader who wants to know which reading of emolument is correct should go to the briefs, the historical evidence, and the clause. What he will find when he gets there is that his sense of which evidence is telling and which is quibbling was formed before he arrived. That is what this paper is for. It is not for telling him what to think when he gets there.
I record, because concealment would be worse, that I hold the structural understanding of corruption to be the true one, on the ground stated in §4.2: the gift blinds, and the blinded man is the last to know. That conviction is a theological one and I have not derived it from the clause. Whether the clause encodes it, and whether it reaches the conduct at issue, are questions of law and of the historical record on which my conviction gives me no standing whatever. A man may be right about what integrity is and wrong about what a document says.
4.5 — The Tie to the Theory
The constitutional case shows the same mechanism as the ecclesial and academic cases, now in the civic register, and the showing is stronger here because the record is denser. What was inference in Paper 3 is documentation in Paper 4. The gap between the idealized and the operational founding is not alleged. It is in the account books.
Run the four probes and the case sorts as the others sorted.
Authority versus evidence. Is the founding held because it can be shown, or because someone with standing has said so? American constitutional culture holds its founding on evidence to a degree no other institution in this cluster approaches—the professional literature is vast, and both parties to the emoluments quarrel argued from documents. Yet the popular storage, the one that decides how a citizen receives the argument before he has read a word of it, is held wholly on authority: on civic instruction, on public ceremony, on the veneration Kammen described. The professionals argue from evidence about a founding the public holds on authority, and the professionals were members of the public first.
Distance. Can the body say, of its own founding, things the founding would not have wanted said? Here the constitutional case does better than the university, and better for a reason worth marking: its historians are read. Wood, Rakove, Maier, and Freeman have said hard things about the founders and the sayings have entered general circulation.[^14] The distance exists and is not only in the library. But observe what happens to the distance when it reaches the room where the argument is conducted: it is not admitted as evidence about the memory. It is conscripted as ammunition by whichever party the particular hard saying happens to serve. That is not distance. That is a furnishing large enough to metabolize its own critics.
The feedback of expected futures. Answered in §4.4, and answered in the affirmative for both parties.
Real failures versus laundered. This is where the case is worst, and it is worst symmetrically. The party of the pure origin admits failures of the present only, and stores a founding without failure: the gilding in its plainest dress. The party of the mixed founding admits a great deal—the slaveholding, the speculation, the exclusions, the interested self-dealing—and every one of these admissions is a failure of the past, confessed by a present that is thereby exonerated, with the confession serving as the mechanism of the exoneration. Paper 3, §3.5 named this operation in the university and it is identical here: penitence in form, self-congratulation in function. A laundered failure is one that costs the admitting party nothing, and neither American constitutional party has produced an account of the founding that indicts itself—that names a failure it is still committing, still profits by, and would have to surrender something to repent of.
Which returns us, as every case in this cluster returns us, to §2.5. The appointed times store exactly the failure that costs something. Atonement stores a guilt the body cannot retire by confessing it, because it comes back next year. Tabernacles stores forty years in booths, kept annually by a people with every incentive to store the arrival instead. Thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt (Deut. 5:15)—not that thy fathers were bondmen, but thou. The commanded memory refuses the exoneration that a confession of ancestral failure performs. The constitutional republic has no such apparatus and could not have built one from its own resources; the fellowship has it, keeps it, and turns it outward. Paper 3, §3.5 said the difference does not run in the university’s favor as much as the university might like. It does not run in the fellowship’s favor at all.
One case remains. In the constitutional quarrel both parties possess a real founding and furnish it differently. In sports governance the revered origin was not gilded from a real past but assembled from one that was never there—an amateur ideal proclaimed as the restoration of something that had never existed in the remembered form, defending an institutional insulation the governing body needed defended. That is the limiting case of Paper 1, §1.1, and it will show that the disposition toward return does not require an origin to revere. Where none is available, it will supply one. Paper 5 takes it up, and after it the hinge paper builds the instrument these four probes have been sketching.
Notes
[^1]: Beard (1913) is the origin of the modern version of this observation and is now cited chiefly as a cautionary tale, which is unfair to the parts of it that stood. See note 3.
[^2]: Elkins and McKitrick (1993) is the fullest treatment of the funding and assumption quarrel and of the mutual charges of corruption that attended it; Ellis (2000) covers the same ground for a general readership and is careful about the participants’ own vocabulary. Freeman (2001) is indispensable on honor, obligation, and the personal texture of early national politics—on how much of the machinery ran on ties that the modern conflict-of-interest vocabulary has no words for and would classify, if it noticed them, as corruption.
[^3]: The standard refutations are Brown (1956) and McDonald (1958), and they are decisive against Beard’s specific thesis—that the framers’ securities holdings predict their convention votes—while leaving intact the unremarkable proposition that the framers had material interests in the government they were designing and knew it. I invoke only the unremarkable proposition. That the specific thesis collapsed and the general observation survived is itself an instance of what this cluster studies: a finding congenial to a reconstructed past was accepted with less scrutiny than it deserved by exactly the historians most alert to the gilding of the idealized one, and its collapse was then treated by the other party as vindication of an origin the collapse did nothing to purify. Cf. Paper 3, note 9, where the same structure appears in the dispute over antebellum college mortality. Nobody’s furnishing is only other people’s problem.
[^4]: Bailyn (1967) and Wood (1969) established the Country Whig genealogy of the founders’ fear of corruption; Teachout (2009, 2014) argues from that genealogy to a constitutional anti-corruption principle. I take Teachout’s historical reconstruction of the eighteenth-century meaning as well founded and express no view on the constitutional doctrine she builds on it, which is contested on grounds independent of the history. The distinction between structural and transactional corruption is the load-bearing element of §4.1 and §4.2, and it is not, so far as I can tell, disputed by the scholars who dispute her conclusions.
[^5]: The three principal actions were CREW v. Trump (S.D.N.Y. and 2d Cir.), District of Columbia v. Trump (D. Md. and 4th Cir.), and Blumenthal v. Trump (D.D.C. and D.C. Cir.). In January 2021 the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgments below, and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot. No court reached a final merits determination on what an emolument is. I state the procedural history at this level of generality because I am working from memory of it and have not verified reporter citations, dates, or the precise disposition of each case; see the flag following the references. Nothing in this paper’s argument depends on the details, and a reader who needs them should not take them from me.
[^6]: The broad reading is developed at length in the plaintiffs’ briefing in the actions named above and in the academic literature supporting it. Its dictionary argument is that founding-era usage of emolument extended to any profit, gain, or advantage, and its purposive argument is the structural understanding of corruption described in §4.2.
[^7]: Tillman (2017) and the work he has done with Blackman set out the narrow reading and the “office . . . under the United States” argument. Whatever one concludes about it, the argument deserves better than the dismissal it usually receives, because it is doing something this cluster should recognize: it is testing an idealized founding against the operational conduct of the men who did the founding. That is the second probe, run by a party with an interest in the result. The probe is sound. That a sound probe can be run by an interested party toward a congenial conclusion is a fact about probes, and it is why the hinge paper must build an instrument rather than merely name a virtue.
[^8]: The evidentiary quarrel over Washington’s gifts—their donors, their character, and whether the recipients understood consent to be required—is genuinely unresolved, and I decline to resolve it. What matters here is that the same objects support opposite inferences depending on the founding the inferring party has stored, which is §4.3’s whole point.
[^9]: Whittington (1999), Balkin (2011), and Amar (2005) are three positions from three directions. I describe them as theories of storage; none of the three would object to the description, though each would insist, correctly, that being a theory of storage is compatible with being true.
[^10]: Rakove (1996). The plural in the title is the argument.
[^11]: Kammen (1986).
[^12]: Levinson (1988). His protestant/catholic distinction—faith in the text alone versus faith in the text as read within an ongoing interpretive community—maps onto this cluster’s two dispositions more closely than either he or I would want pressed very far, and I note the correspondence without leaning on it.
[^13]: Koselleck (2004); see Paper 1, note 4, for what is and is not borrowed.
[^14]: Wood (1969, 1992); Rakove (1996); Maier (1997, 2010); Freeman (2001). Maier (2010) on the ratification debates is the sharpest available demonstration that the founding was a contested political brawl rather than a deliberation among sages, and it is written by a historian who plainly admired the result.
[^15]: On the refusal to render a verdict in §4.4: a reader may object that this is fastidiousness, and that a scholar who has an opinion should say so. I have said the one thing I have standing to say—that the structural understanding of corruption is true—and withheld the thing I do not, which is the legal question. The objection would land if the paper’s thesis were merely that furnishings influence verdicts. It is not. The thesis is that the furnishing fixes the verdict in advance of the merits (Paper 1, §1.4), and Paper 2, §2.4 established that sincerity is not evidence and outcome is not evidence. A man who believes both of those things and then announces his verdict on the very case he has just used to demonstrate them has demonstrated something else instead.
References
Amar, A. R. (2005). America’s Constitution: A biography. Random House.
Bailyn, B. (1967). The ideological origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.
Balkin, J. M. (2011). Living originalism. Harvard University Press.
Beard, C. A. (1913). An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Macmillan.
Brown, R. E. (1956). Charles Beard and the Constitution: A critical analysis of “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.” Princeton University Press.
Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. G. Bell and Sons.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse University Press.
Elkins, S., & McKitrick, E. (1993). The age of federalism: The early American republic, 1788–1800. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, J. J. (2000). Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation. Knopf.
Freeman, J. B. (2001). Affairs of honor: National politics in the new republic. Yale University Press.
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Kammen, M. (1986). A machine that would go of itself: The Constitution in American culture. Knopf.
King James Bible. (1987). Thomas Nelson. (Original work published 1611)
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time (K. Tribe, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1979)
Levinson, S. (1988). Constitutional faith. Princeton University Press.
Maier, P. (1997). American scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. Knopf.
Maier, P. (2010). Ratification: The people debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. Simon & Schuster.
McDonald, F. (1958). We the people: The economic origins of the Constitution. University of Chicago Press.
Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original meanings: Politics and ideas in the making of the Constitution. Knopf.
Shils, E. (1981). Tradition. University of Chicago Press.
Teachout, Z. (2009). The anti-corruption principle. Cornell Law Review, 94(2), 341–413.
Teachout, Z. (2014). Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s snuff box to Citizens United. Harvard University Press.
Tillman, S. B. (2017). Business transactions and President Trump’s “emoluments” problem. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 40(3), 759–770.
Whittington, K. E. (1999). Constitutional interpretation: Textual meaning, original intent, and judicial review. University Press of Kansas.
Wood, G. S. (1969). The creation of the American republic, 1776–1787. University of North Carolina Press.
Wood, G. S. (1992). The radicalism of the American Revolution. Knopf.
Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1982). Zakhor: Jewish history and Jewish memory. University of Washington Press.
