Article 1, section 6, clause 2
Executive summary
Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — commonly called the Incompatibility Clause or the Emoluments/Sinecure Clause — bars a sitting Senator or Representative from being appointed to a civil office created or the emoluments of which were increased during the term for which they were elected (text and annotation available at the Library of Congress) [1]. Legal commentary and constitutional annotations explain the clause’s practical effect: it prevents members of Congress from creating or enriching offices for immediate personal benefit and more broadly enforces separation of powers by limiting simultaneous service in legislative and executive offices [2].
1. What the text says and where to read it
The clause states that “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 encreased during such time” — the official text and annotated discussion are published by the Library of Congress Constitution Annotated [1] [3]. For plain-text access and surrounding provisions of Section 6, the Constitution Annotated site provides the primary reference [3].
2. The clause’s plain purpose: prevent self-dealing and protect separation of powers
Scholars and legal commentaries treat the clause as a guard against legislative self-dealing — Congress members cannot vote to create a new civil office or increase its pay and then immediately take that office themselves while still serving the term that enacted the change [2]. The provision operates alongside other constitutional mechanisms that separate powers among the branches; commentators note it is “broader” in some respects than related anti-appointment provisions because it applies to “any Office under the United States,” not solely to offices created or increased in specific circumstances [2].
3. How courts and Congress have treated incompatibility issues
Historical precedents show Congress has exercised its own authority to determine seat eligibility when members accept “incompatible” offices — for example, by denying seats or declaring seats vacant where members simultaneously held other offices [2]. The Legal Information Institute’s annotation surveys precedents and academic discussion that interpret the Clause as both a narrow rule about newly created or enhanced offices and a broader incompatibility principle restraining concurrent holdings [2].
4. Relationship to other constitutional clauses and practical effects
Article I’s Incompatibility Clause sits in a constellation of structural rules: Article II’s Appointments Clause governs how the president and Senate fill offices, and other sections of Article I regulate congressional pay and privileges [4] [3]. The practical effect is administrative and preventive rather than punitive: it changes incentives and timing (for instance, pay raises for offices affecting members take effect after elections, a point emphasized in lay explanations) and preserves institutional boundaries between legislative careers and executive appointments [5] [3].
5. Where interpretations disagree or leave gaps
Commentators disagree on the Clause’s breadth. Some emphasize the narrow textual limitation tied strictly to offices created or increased during a member’s term; others read a wider incompatibility principle that forbids many concurrent federal roles for lawmakers [2]. Available sources do not mention any single, definitive Supreme Court ruling that fully settles all modern edge cases — the Law Cornell summary catalogs congressional and historical practice as central to application [2]. Academic debate continues about edge cases (e.g., reserve military service, certain advisory roles) and about how broadly “emoluments” should be read [2].
6. Why this matters today
The clause is relevant whenever a member of Congress is nominated for a federal civil office, when Congress votes on pay for federal offices, or when institutional norms about separation of powers are under discussion. Constitutional annotations and law summaries show the clause has been used by Congress itself to police eligibility and prevent perceived abuses [2] [3]. Public debate often centers on whether appointment timing or statutory design can work around the clause; legal commentary underscores that institutional remedies and precedent play a vital role in enforcement [2].
7. How to research further in authoritative sources
Begin with the Library of Congress Constitution Annotated entry on Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 for the clause text and annotated history [1] [3]. Follow that with the Legal Information Institute’s detailed discussion of the Incompatibility Clause and congressional precedents [2]. For broader context on separation-of-powers provisions that interact with this clause, review Articles I and II in the Constitution Annotated and related secondary commentary [4] [3].
Limitations: this summary relies on constitutional texts and annotated commentaries in the provided materials; available sources do not mention a modern Supreme Court decision definitively resolving every interpretive dispute about the Clause [2].