It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did Obama violate the Constitution?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:18 AM

I usually stay clear of the whole divide, and conquer scheme being laid before Our very feet, but this is a clear violation of the Constitution.

Read away with "giddy" childlike joy! However, I would have to ask considering the very real fact of a possible "Business Plot" being set up, to be taken into account. You can see it as laid out in this thread: Major General Smedley Darlington Butler: ATS Idol

Just food for thought; there is a rebellion gaining steam, and momentum; just make sure it really does work out for the People, by the People



Serious question.

"Mr. Obama sat in New York as chairman of the Security Council — a first for an American president, meant to symbolize his commitment to rebuilding the Council’s tattered authority."

The president did not just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the leader holding the gavel for the month.

The rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th.

But, the U.S. Constitution States that:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9 - 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.

No U.S. President has ever served as Chairman of the U.N. in it's 65 year history. The U.N is a foreign state (a collection of foreign states actually). Did Congress grant approval for Obama to receive this title (Chairman of the U.N. Security Council) and I missed it? Is it Constitutional for Obama to be President of the United States AND Chairman of the U.N. Security Council at the same time? Is this a conflict of interest?

Has Obama violated Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution?

Before the Leftists start screaming "racism" or the Conservatives start jumping on the band-wagon...please think it out. This is a serious question I have here. Thanks in advance for any thoughtful answers I receive.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:25 AM
i guess he did since the constitution said so.

he might have wanted to be first for clue

[edit on 30-9-2009 by platipus]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:28 AM

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Actually it should be constitutional since the US is a signatory to the UN charter with the advice and consent of the senate since the founding of the UN.

Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945

[edit on 9/18/2009 by DarkStormCrow]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by DarkStormCrow

Should be doesn't mean that it is.

Doing things because he thinks it should be can lead down a dangerous road.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

Serious answer, yes he did violate because we have yet to hear anything from congress allowing him to do so...

However, when confronted with it, congress would undoubtedly vote for the Pass...

The other thread looks interesting 2x MoH ! Wow. You know they never mentioned the Maj. Gen's name in the history books that I was given to study.

So much to learn and so little time.


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:32 AM
Very good question?

Will definately require a bit of research, Did Obama procure Congress decision to allow this; if so then he is in the good, I would think that Obama would be intelligent enough to have Congress decision prior to publicly stating that he would Chair the Security Council just to prevent the fallout. However I also do not believe that Obama made that information public knowledge within his statements. Then not much surprises me anymore.

Of course over the last several presidencies, there have been questionable decisions, laws, and regulations that appear to be unconstitutional until you reasearch and find either the constitutional law was vague(not defining) or amended to allow these questionable acts.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:37 AM
Not a conflict of interest, the US is a signatory to the UN Charter and this was ratified by the Senate way back when. He can appoint the Ambassador or he can sit in the chair himself, I really do not see a problem here at all.

[edit on 9/30/2009 by DarkStormCrow]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:44 AM
I'm with Sancho, I called GW on his lies and dismantling the constitution and I'll call Obama on this one if indeed it's correct. I don't believe that any sitting president should hold an office of a foreign sovereign state, I don't care if it's legal or not.

Hold them all equally accountable

Edit to add S&F

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Sundancer]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:47 AM
If this is true, the Anti-Christ angle seems to be playing out more & more!

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:57 AM
reply to post by DrMattMaddix

I believe he did violate the Law as written in the US Constitution. However, what I am more concerned with is that there is a rebellion stirring with things like this. As You know from my previous posts, I have always said just make sure that what is born out of the ashes is a true society of Liberty, of freedom.

So again, I believe We are on the verge of another military led coup; which would be similar to the "Business Plot".

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:03 AM

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

However, when confronted with it, congress would undoubtedly vote for the Pass...

I have a gripe with that statement. You could very well be right, they WOULD pass it after the fact. THATS THE DAMN PROBLEM!!!! This whole "easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission" policy of our last several presidents is a major cause for concern. There is a reason that orders and procedures are laid out in the Constitution. If Obama wants to sit in, FINE let him. But it needs to be made sure that 1) he is not violating the Constitution. 2) He gets the appropriate permission of the Congress as he is supposed to.

If the President wont follow the rules, what message does that send to anyone else? Worse, if the President continually side steps legislation and has no accountability for it, well my friends that's how dictatorships are formed. I'm not saying Obama would become one, but it leaves the door open down the line.

We are fast slipping from a Republic to a which point, its a very small step into oppression.

Off topic, everyone says why weren't we bitching about this when Bush did it, or Clinton, or Nixon, or whomever. Well, we were, but not as vocally. Obama just happens to be the guy in there now when the straws are finally breaking the camels back. Its a cumulative effect and people are getting all Picard and saying "This fa, no fatha. The line has to be drawn hea"!

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:13 AM
A quick note

President of the United Nations Security Council

The Permanent Representative (ambassador) of the state that holds the presidency is usually the president of the Council, but if an official from the state who is higher in authority than the Permanent Representative (such as a foreign minister, prime minister, or head of state) is present in the Council, the higher official is the president. For example, in January 2000, a month in which the United States held the presidency of the Security Council, U.S. Vice President Al Gore headed the United States delegation to the United Nations for a few days. As a result, Gore was the President of the Security Council during this time.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:14 AM
I'm familiar with the business plot agenda, and can relate to what your saying. It looks like wall street could be creating another businesses plot led by General Stanley McChrystal current commander of US forces in Afghanistan. Here are two articles which I think lend credence to this line of thought.

60 Minutes and the General

But the interview was more than just another “60 Minutes” puff piece. Four-star battlefront generals don't put on dog-and-pony shows for reporters without a very good reason for doing so, and he put on a very fancy show for Martin, with stops at his room, his office, his briefing room, trips in his helicopter and SUV, and much more. It’s difficult to imagine that McChrystal’s reason was anything other than putting pressure on the Obama administration to give him the series of very large troop increases he thinks he needs to win his war.

Obama at war with his general

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Sundancer]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by DarkStormCrow

I'd forgotten about Al Gore doing that, good research man. Quick question though, does the VP have the same Constitutional restrictions as the Pres in this type of situation?

Only other concern I would have with that is that the statements you quoted were from the UN Charter right? Its my understanding that the Constitution still supersedes the Charter for American citizens. I mean, just because the Charter says you can, doesn't mean you can if you are bound by the Constitution.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:53 AM
The way I see it this is legal, The US are signatories to the UN charter, The Charter was entered into with the advice and consent of the Senate via the ratification process. We obey the rules of the UN and if the rules of the UN allow this then its is not a violation of the Constititution as the Senate has already approved the charter. Permission was given to the President or the Vice President during the ratification process.

I think this issue is a tempest in a teapot and just one more thing to beat Mr Obama over the head with, and I am no supporter of Mr Obama or our membership in the UN.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:02 AM
Can I just say that I love the sig's of the two guys above me? No? There's not time for that? Ok, then on to the topic.

The way I see it, plain and simple, is yes.

Does it surprise me? Not at all. Obama is going to do whatever he wants just like his predecessor(s) and we are the pawns that get taken by the kings and queens of the world's chess board.

I wonder why he deems it necessary to do this since no other Pres. has. What is going on over there at the U.N. that he need to sit in on, or is this just because he can, like he's doing for the Olympics for his corrupt city of Chicago?

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:13 AM
reply to post by DarkStormCrow

Fair enough, I think that this would be where the courts would come in to judge whether or not its Constitutional. I guess my gripe is that it will never come to that. Secondly, I totally agree that people are going overboard on beating on Obama. Not everything he does needs such scrutiny. OMG he took a vacation...lets gripe him out!

I would say that THIS issue would need said scrutiny considering it's a matter of Constitutional compliance. I also can see your point about it. We DID ratify the Charter and that being said, it's probably ok. Good discussion.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by TheLoony

Glad you like the Sig
That's courtesy of my good friend WhiteWave. She cracks me up.

Secondly, I would think that he's just trying to show to the world how much he cares about nuclear disarmament and the other topics that would be on the floor while he's the chairman. Just showing that he cares enough to represent the U.S. personally. At least that's the silver lining possibility.

Or for the "cloud" possibility, it could be something more sinister, but I tend to doubt it. I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't think he's the greatest Pres we've had, but overall, even though I disagree with most of his positions, he seems like a decent guy. I think he thinks he's right, and is generally trying to do what he thinks is best for the country.

Although he did unmercifully kill that fly....

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by midnightbrigade

Ah, Whitewave, yes, I know her. She seems quite cool but I have a bone to pick with her for stealing my line in Sancho's other thread(OTHER?!?! Dudes got hundreds a going on - he's on top of things for sure) "Create A Thread, A Post, Or Partake In Blogs, and Face Lawsuits,& Felonies" before I could even get a chance to use it but that's neither here nor there.

I do think this is just a bit fishy, Obama doing this. If no other Pres. has seen the need to do this, why does he? Does it not seem odd to anyone else that he's doping this? What's his motive?

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:02 AM

Article 2, Section 2

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Did the Senate advice and consent to his self-appointment?

Article 1, Section 6
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 increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

While specifically this deals with members of the House and Senate to not hold other offices, would the same hold true for the President?

Would the self-appointment to a foreign governing body (of which the UN is) be a violation of the public trust for a sitting President? The UN Security Council makes policies for the entire world to use as policy. Some regard the UN as a global authority over other nations, but the right to view UN regulations as "guidelines" remains to all nations.

It is definitely a problem as many will view this as the US President dictating world policy over other nations. And for the fears of Obama being a gun grabber. He could use this position to overturn the Second Amendment and other US Policies, bypassing the Congress and other checks and balances.

But then again, the US is free to ignore anything decided by the UN. I do not like this move. I do not approve of this move. And quite frankly, I think Obama needs a serious talking to by We the People very soon lest it should come less reasonable actions to be taken by the people.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in