An Unconstitutional Nobel

An Unconstitutional Nobel

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.huffingtonpost.com

The Washington Post raises the question as to whether or not President Obama can legally accept the Nobel Peace prize without the consent and approval of Congress. Even if the U.S. government takes possession of the money awarded, the Constitution clearly states that even a "Title, of any kind" can not be awarded without the consent and approval of Congress.

The most recent President in history to receive this prize was President Jimmy Carter, but this wasn't awarded until 2002. More than a decade after he left office. The founders added this clause to the Constitution to prevent foreign countries from swaying the policy of the United States by giving gifts and bribes. It will be interesting to see what Congress has to say about what appears to be a fairly straightforward law.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by dbates

---

We have something similar in Canada, except it refers to titles such as "lord", "sir", "lady", etc. granted by foreign royalty and heads of state. Are you sure this isn't the same? You don't get an official legal title from winning the Nobel prize..

HMM..........you would think a constitutional lawyer would know this.

Well, the award does come with a $1.4 million prize. As the news article points out, Pres. Obama can't even give that to charity in his name since that would give him a huge tax break.

As far as the title of "Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize" I'd say that this was actually better than the title of "Sir" or "Lord" since so very few people actually receive the award. For instance you could use it to boost your reputation and status. Looking at it that way I'm sure even the medal they give out would have to receive the blessing of Congress. We'll just have to wait and see what Congress says.

I've been calling shenanigans every since he won that award. Something smells fishy in this whole nobel prize thing. Nice to see that people are researching this matter further.

reply to post by dbates

---

Isnt the title "2009 Nobel Laureate".

sounds pretty formal to me

Since when has the Constitution bothered Obama?

Or his cabinet?

AND his Czars.

Russia never had this many Czars in their entire history.

I'm going to agree with ZombieOctopus. I don't think king, prince or foreign state applies to the people that give out the prize without a lot of stretching.

It isn't a legal title though, I believe that's what the amendment means, like it does in Canada.

For instance, you don't get; "Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize", on your drivers license or anything else. If you're knighted, you're then legally Sir John Smith.

Interesting...
Wikipedia says that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a comittee of 5 Norwegians. I guess that would make it a gift from a state.

However, what of the other Presidents who have won it while in office in the past?
Perhaps this rule was overlooked in the past since the actual acheivement was big and important enough for the people to accept and understand why their leader got an award?

reply to post by dbates

---

I would not hold my breath on this one. Of course since Obama is not really president because of his dual citizenship status conveyed by his foreign born father, that issue will have to be resolved before Congress determines whether he can have the Nobel prize.

The prize was for dissolving the United States wasn't it?

reply to post by fleetlord

---

I'm on the fence now. It appears that the Norwegian govt appoints the committee members so it doesn't involve quite so much stretching.

I do still think the US law was intended in the same spirit as ours, no matter how it ends up being interpreted by Congress. We're more restricted and aren't allowed to accept titles of nobility from foreign govts unless we give up our Canadian citizenship.

As much as I think its a joke that he won the award, I don't think there's a strong constitutional argument to be made against it. He wasn't given that award by a foreign government, but by a private committee and as such, I don't think that clause applies.

Then again...hold that thought for a moment. I suppose I'll have to edit this to say that if the Norwegian government appoints the members of the committee, as others have stated, then the issue is much more complicated and there *may* be a legal case here.



[edit on 15-10-2009 by vor78]

I am going to have to say no on this one dbates. While it is a prestigious award, the Nobel Committee doesn't really have an influence the way say knighthood would. In effect it would be like if ATS gave him an award as Most Controversial Man of 2009, for being the subject for so many threads and huge threads this year.

But if you would like to question his actual actions and how they may be unconstitutional, then you might like this thread regarding self-appointment to the UN Security Council

I dont think anyone would make a legal arguement against him receiving the award...but still would be something worth resolving

These laws applied before Bush, (BB), its all changed now.

Its whatever they want it to be.

OMG the US government not following the constitution? OMG this can't be!
Come on guys, Amerika hasn't followed the constitution for at least 100 years, probably longer... As Bush said, "It's just a piece of paper"...

I'm going to say that it doesn't much matter.

I don't much care about a noise violation ticket if my house is on fire. There are much more pressing matters.

What Emolument, Office, or Title do you think he has received? He has received only an award as far as I know. Or is price the correct word?