"sacred honour", "office of honour"

Tue Apr 9 02:35:09 UTC 2013

The Constitution says: "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."

Seems to me the Founders were thinking about such things.

DanG

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Dave Wilton <dave at wilton.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> Subject:      Re: "sacred honour", "office of honour"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't think that anyone is saying there isn't a distinction, just that
> the
> phrase "office of honor, trust, or profit" means "office of any type."
>
> Although I think a salary would be a bigger distinction between the two.
> (And I doubt the framers of the constitution had the distinction about
> gifts
> in mind, if it was even operable 224 years ago.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Dan Goncharoff
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:19 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: "sacred honour", "office of honour"
>
> There is a meaningful distinction between offices of "honor, Trust or
> Profit" and offices of "Trust and Profit". Offices of honor are allowed to
> receive gilts from foreign governments, for instance.
>
> DanG
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Dave Wilton <dave at wilton.net> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: "sacred honour", "office of honour"
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> >
> > No, it just means that Hamilton didn't think that clause was very
> > relevant in convincing the legislators in New York to ratify the
> > Constitution. (But I do think the phrase would have been transparent
> > to any lawyer.)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Joel S. Berson
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:42 PM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: "sacred honour", "office of honour"
> >
> > At 4/8/2013 03:49 PM, Dave Wilton wrote:
> > >Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., defines "office of honor" as "an
> > >uncompensated public position of considerable dignity and importance
> > >to which public trusts or interests are confided."
> > >
> > >That dictionary does not define "office of profit," but it does
> > >"lucrative office," which is a position that yields a salary or other
> > >monetary compensation.
> > >
> > >So "office of honor, Trust, or Profit" does indeed seem to simply
> > >mean "office, official position, either paid or unpaid." It's typical
> > >legalese, spelling out all the possibilities so there is no
> > >misinterpretation (e.g., "I'm not paid, so it's not a real office and
> > >I'm not subject to impeachment").
> > >
> > >Hamilton's Federalist #65, which addresses the impeachment clause,
> > >does not discuss the terms.
> >
> > In other words, everybody knew what it meant then, so they don't need
> > to explain it for us now.
> >
> > Joel
> >
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> > >Behalf Of Baker, John
> > >Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:54 PM
> > >To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > >Subject: Re: "sacred honour", "office of honour"
> > >
> > >For those of you who don't have their Constitution at hand, the
> > >passage in question reads:  "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall
> > >not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification
> > >to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the
> > >United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable
> > >and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to
> Law."
> > >
> > >I believe that "Office of honor, Trust or Profit" means essentially
> > >the same as "office."  Certainly Story's Commentaries, secs. 781 et
> > >seq., does not seem to give any great weight to the terms "honor,
> > >Trust or Profit" in this context.  The words may have been helpful in
> > >showing that the disqualification is not limited to civil offices.
> > >Civil officers alone are subject to impeachment; Congress cannot
> > >impeach a
> > general.
> > >
> > >"Office of profit" simply meant that the office was one for pay.  For
> > >example, in Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 1 Serg. & Rawle 1 (Pa. 1814),
> > >we
> > see:
> > >"By the Constitution of Pennsylvania, art. 5, sect. 2, it is provided
> > >that the Judges of the Supreme Court and Presidents of the several
> > >Courts of Common Pleas, "shall not hold any other office of profit
> > >under this Commonwealth." This was an office of profit. The
> > >commissioners were entitled to three dollars and fifty cents for
> > >every day
> > they acted."
> > >
> > >I don't think "sacred honor" meant anything different in 1787 (or in
> > >1776, when it was used in the Declaration of Independence) than it
> > >does
> > today.
> > >
> > >Incidentally, both the Declaration and the Constitution spell "honor"
> > >without the u.
> > >
> > >
> > >John Baker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> > >Behalf Of Joel S. Berson
> > >Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 11:08 AM
> > >To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > >Subject: "sacred honour", "office of honour"
> > >
> > >I am interested in the meaning of the following terms in and at the
> > >time of the adoption of the US Constitution:
> > >
> > >sacred honour
> > >
> > >office of trust
> > >office of honour
> > >office of profit
> > >
> > >In the Constitution the last three appear in, and apparently only in,
> > >the article dealing with impeachment, where they are listed together
> > >and are not distinguished.  A litle bit of Googling suggests that
> > >there were no definitions because everyone knew what they meant!
> > >
> > >"Office of profit" I will guess is one where the revenues are farmed,
> > >and a portion provides compensation for the office-holder.  But
> > >that's only a guess.
> > >
> > >Joel
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org