At Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman: Part I—A Response to Professor Jed Shugerman on Slate in 2017, and his most recent 2024 Tweet Thread(s), About The 1793 Hamilton Document! From the introduction:
[In 2017] Professor Jed Shugerman and Professor Gautham Rao also wrote a Slate article explaining why Hamilton [in 1793] would not have listed President Washington as a person holding "any civil office or employment under the United States." Their argument was premised on the Constitution's Sinecure or Ineligibility Clause. The clause provides: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been [i]ncreased during such time." U.S. Const. Art. I, Sect. 6, Cl. 2. In short, Shugerman and Rao explained that since there was no concern that the presidency could trigger a violation of the Sinecure Clause, Hamilton did not list the presidency and the president's compensation.
…
Now, roughly seven years later, Shugerman has resuscitated his (and Professor Rao's) 2017 Slate argument based on the Sinecure Clause. We will respond to Shugerman here. (Rao has not resuscitated his prior position in Slate, or said anything else about the Hamilton document of late, so we will only mention Rao in passing in order to lay the facts before the reader.) …
Posted at 12:51 AM