makes its appearance in this linguists’ amicus memorandum filed in Rodearmel v. Clinton, the Ineligibility Clause (a k a Emoluments Clause) case.
The question, as you may recall, is this: Does “the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time” refer to a salary having been increased on balance during a time (“the Time for which [Senator Clinton] was elected”)? Does it refer to the salary having been increased at least once even if it was later decreased? Or is the phrase ambiguous, as the linguists suggest?