The American Fons Honorum

by Bauceant »
Fri May 04, 2007 8:43 am

When asked, most Americans would reply that there are "no knights" in the U.S. As every school child learns, ours is a democratic nation and the U.S. Constitution probibits the assignment of noble and royal titles to it's citizens. As this quote from Alexander Hamilton in "The Federalist" illustrates, this was a very important issue to the American founding fathers:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."(1)

So strong was the law maker's desire to prohibit such titles from being bestowed on it's citizens, that a further amendment was proposed that would strip recipients of such awards of their citizenship. This amendment, proposed by senator Philip Reed in 1810; read in part:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility, or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, pension, office or emolument, of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." (2)

Thankfully, however, that Amendment was never ratified; leaving modern legislators and lawmakers the opportunity for a much wider interpretation of the original law. So, now that we have an idea of what didn't happen, let us turn our attention to what does Article I: Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution (the "Emolument Clause") does provide for:

"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."

According to many scholars and historians, the purpose of the Emolument Clause was two-fold:

1) prevent our fledgling government of instituting it's own system of nobles and titles.
2) to prevent royalty existing at that time from using promised preferments and titles as bribes in order to obtain cooperation from U.S. citizens.

The first thing an attentive reader should note is that the text in this section is very specific as to whom it applies to. Private citizens are, by textual ommission, exempt from compliance under Article I. It is only a "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them (i.e. the U.S. Government) who is prohibited from accepting noble or royal honours. Once a citizen relinquishes their public office (at whatever level he/she holds it), they are no longer part of the "prohibited class" and may accept such honours are conveyed upon them without (as they say in Medieval parlance) "let, or hindrance from any."

In 1966, to help clarify the guidelines regarding honors bestowed on Americans by foreign governments (such "honors" including, but not limited to: orders, devices, medals, badges, insignias, emblems or awards") the U.S. Congress passed the "Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act."(5 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 7342). In this Act:

"...Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee."

During later review of said Act, the U.S. Department of Justice ruled that an honorary knighthood should be considered an "Order", and as such is considered as permitted by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act.

_________________________________________

1. The Federalist No. 84, at 577-78 (Alexander Hamilton) (J. Cooke ed., 1961).
2. 20 Annals of Congress, pg. 530 (1810).

TO BE CONTINUED...