An Unconstitutional Nobel, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 54 times

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:01 AM by PsykoOps

...from any King, Prince or foreign State... I didn't notice that. So case closed. Nobel doesn't fit any of those. Maybe I read more accurately next time

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:01 AM by xpert11

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Given the lack of creditability surrounding the Nobel Peace prize I would rate an Olympic Gold Medal achievements ahead of some of the more recent Nobel winners . The reasons for Obama be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and how I value it are ill relevant to whether or not Obama can constitutionally receive the award .

Cheers xpert11 .

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:07 AM by ownbestenemy

reply to post by xpert11

Oh I agree. The peace prize is nothing than a political tool used by Europe to influence countries that do not fall under their guise. Arafat? Gore? Carter? really? what a disgrace to such a "Nobel" award, pun intended.

Does the title violate the constitution? Cannot tell. I am not a constitutional scholar just as I am guessing most that have claimed for or against on here can equally claim they are constitutional scholars with credentials and background....oh wait, they cannot.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:12 AM by PsykoOps

By that logic, how about the last guy before Obama. Martti Ahtisaari? He got it after his precidency for pretty clear peace work. So every now and then they choose "to influence countries that do not fall under their guise."? And also "Europe" has nothing to do with that committee.

[edit on 16/10/2009 by PsykoOps]

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:15 AM by ownbestenemy

reply to post by PsykoOps

Is that not the meaning of 'every now and then'? I did not state that every time the Nobel committee picks their winners purely on their ability to demonstrate Mr. Nobel's ideas on peace. I stated 'every now and then' meaning just that, ever so often, the committee wishes to make more a political statement rather than a statement towards the world that this man, woman, person has demonstrated the ideals of Mr. Nobel.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:17 AM by xpert11

I would say to anyone who supports the lame partisan notion that Obama couldn't constitutionally receive the Nobel Peace Prize that by the fraudulent standard they are setting the all powerful Israeli lobby would also be deemed unconstitutional as it is foreign influence. Certainly some food for thought is on offer .

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:19 AM by PsykoOps

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Ok, cleared that up. I misunderstood you because I thought that you were saying that it was always used for such.

[edit on 16/10/2009 by PsykoOps]

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:21 AM by ownbestenemy

reply to post by xpert11

AHAHAHA! Sorry. I claim no allegiance nor do I claim any side. Such a powerful argument you have set forward though. If they disagree, or question they MUST be ZIONIST and want Israel to take over the world.

Do I think it is unconstitutional for a sitting president to hold a title of a Nobel Peace Prize. No. Do I think it is unconstitutional for people to speak their minds about such matters? Nope. Get with the equal protection under the law bit my friend. People can espouse their opinions, doesn't mean you have to listen to them.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:28 AM by xpert11

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
AHAHAHA! Sorry. I claim no allegiance nor do I claim any side. Such a powerful argument you have set forward though. If they disagree, or question they MUST be ZIONIST and want Israel to take over the world.

Umm I never commented on the merits of the Israeli - Palestine situation all I pointed out was where the precedent of Obama not being able to constitutionally receive the Nobel Prize would set . Big difference .

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:29 AM by hornum

reply to post by dbates

Not to mention that he never deserved the thing in the first place!

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 04:30 AM by ownbestenemy

reply to post by xpert11

Sorry mods delete my stuff. I might have been celebrating some good times and might have decided to log onto ATS for some fun. If posts are irrelevant or coherent, please delete. Again, Xpert, sorry. I am not in my right frame of mind. GOD BLESS FIREFOX SPELL CHECK

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 05:24 AM by Iamonlyhuman

This clause doesn't pertain to this situation because the Nobel committee is not tied (overtly) to another government. But, even if it were, it wouldn't matter because the constitution doesn't apply to those in power. Remember this? Kennedy knighted?? what about the constitution?. The title bestowed on Ted Kennedy was Knight Commander, Order of the British Empire. Now, THAT was obviously unconstitutional. Did anyone care? I did, but nobody that could or would do anything about it did.

The constitution is only a protection as long as there are those who are willing AND ABLE to defend it. Who is willing and able to defend it now? In a word.... nobody.

[edit on 16/10/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 05:53 AM by piddles

too bad he hasn't actually gotten it yet.

I'm sure congress would approve, considering he's donating all the money so all he'd really have is a piece of paper and be another name on a list.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 06:00 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by dbates

I am no fan of Obama. Can't stand the guy.

*sigh*

But, he wasn't president in 2009. Sure, he was president elect, but since Teddy Roosevelt won, and one other, (can't remember, no caffine) I think they may find a comparison.

Would love to shout "booyah" and take the thing away, even though he didn't earn it, even though it was a 3-2 split determination on the part of the judges, the deciding vote? Some communist informer. But Obama got it. A tarnished tin trophy for giving up the store. For throwing the game.

Just my, very bitter, 2 cents.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 06:09 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by dbates

Geesh, you all should be ashamed of yourselves, you racists...

The "messiah" isn't constrained by the US Constitution!!!

Anyone who knows anything knows this much.

Let's all sing our favorite Obama worship songs, key the organ brothers and sisters.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 06:38 AM by piddles

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by dbates

Geesh, you all should be ashamed of yourselves, you racists...

The "messiah" isn't constrained by the US Constitution!!!

Anyone who knows anything knows this much.

Let's all sing our favorite Obama worship songs, key the organ brothers and sisters.

hey the whole sarcasm thing with "the messiah" or whatever you THINK people who like the president call him is kinda...not funny/old/baiting/trolling/stupid but gets starred somehow (probably by someone who does the same thing)

"hey look at my useless comment! I don't like obama! go me!"

It's in every thread obama thread, at least once every 3 pages.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 06:43 AM by mikerussellus

reply to post by piddles

I don't think it's useless. It's illusstrating the idolation of some junior senator out of Chicago with an ego bigger than the Nile.

Should he be quoting from the media? Where tingles run down their legs when Obama speaks?

Everyone has a right to their opinion, except in Obama's America apparently.

-sheesh-

[edit on 16-10-2009 by mikerussellus]

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 06:51 AM by piddles

reply to post by mikerussellus

I said it was useless, I didn't say you're not allowed to say it. And yes it is useless, it's an exaggeration of what democrats believe, followed by a comment that is being spun in a way that Obama indoctrinates children rather than the truth that parents indoctrinate their children.

oh, and because it doesn't add any real content to the discussion, it's just the kind of comment meant to upset people .

Just like the usual "I guess I can't say what I want in Obama's America" when holy crap, you just did?

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 07:08 AM by Lazyninja

Originally posted by chiron613
The Nobel Commission is not a State. It's a private institution.

It states that a president can't accept awards and such from kings, princes and foreign states. I suppose it's okay to accept potential bribes from queens, princesses and politically motivated private institutions?

The list is not exhaustive enough, because when it was written, it was assumed that whoever would need to refer to it would have the common sense to know where potential bribes could come from.

reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 07:13 AM by piddles

Originally posted by Lazyninja

Originally posted by chiron613
The Nobel Commission is not a State. It's a private institution.

It states that a president can't accept awards and such from kings, princes and foreign states. I suppose it's okay to accept potential bribes from queens, princesses and politically motivated private institutions?

The list is not exhaustive enough, because when it was written, it was assumed that whoever would need to refer to it would have the common sense to know where potential bribes could come from.