Is the restriction on receiving a &quot;present&quot; in the Emoluments Clause applicable?
<p>The Emolument Clause:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The part about receiving a title from a King, Prince... is clear enough; the question is about the receiving a "present".</p>

<p>Is a "present" a "<em>thing of value</em>" not paid for at fair value?</p>

<p>Is a thing of value a well defined legal concept when dealing with immaterial goods and ideas?</p>

<p>What is fair value? Can immaterial goods ever have a defined, measurable fair value?</p>

<p>Is an honor a "gift"? Can a US President receive the honor (not money) of a Nobel prize?</p>

<p>§III of the complaint <a href="https://ia600600.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.83.0.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Blumenthal et al. v. Trump</a> especially para 23- provide useful historical background on the Emoluments Clauses, in connection with preventing corruption, especially the practice of monarchs giving &quot;the usual presents&quot; to diplomats and ministers. This resulted in provisions both in the Articles of Confederation and in The Constitution prohibiting acceptance of &quot;any present, Emolument, Office, or Title&quot;. Plaintiffs argue that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the word “emolument” was defined broadly in the eighteenth century to
mean “profit,” “advantage,” “benefit,” and “comfort.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Para 24 present a series of examples of &quot;things given&quot; which were found to be within the purview of the Emoluments Clauses, which includes employment, payment for work, also an honorary military insignia, a photograph, as well as <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/20796/download" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a piece of paper</a> conferring honorary Irish citizenship on President Kennedy. In the latter case, the question is whether he could receive the piece of paper – the conclusion was that he could receive it and then deposit it with the Dept. of State pending Congressional approval (actual citizenship was not conferred, only an honor was conferred, but also a piece of paper was given, which brought the matter within the scope of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The House of Representatives took up a specific matter on <a href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=008/llac008.db&amp;recNum=184" rel="nofollow noreferrer">May 4, 1789</a> (p. 1581), with ample mention of &quot;presents&quot; (no mention of &quot;emoluments&quot;), receipt of which is prohibited without congressional approval. In the context of that debate, during the 5th Congress, it is clear that &quot;present&quot; means &quot;something that is presented&quot; and not &quot;something of significant value&quot;.</p>
<p>Since the <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086" rel="nofollow noreferrer">three relevant lawsuits</a> never reached the stage of evaluating the merits of the arguments, we can only guess how SCOTUS would interpret the word &quot;present&quot;, but it is most likely that at least the present court would adhere to a more historical understanding of the term as &quot;something presented&quot;, cash value being irrelevant.</p>
<p>It is also most probable that a person holding such an office <em>would</em> be legally allowed to say &quot;Thank you&quot; in response to the King of Norway declaring &quot;Wonder speech, Mr. Secretary&quot;, even though doing so is acceptance of an honor.</p>

constitutional-law us-constitution gift bribery