It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

An Unconstitutional Nobel

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Isn't the idea behind this law to prevent a person in power, the President, from receiving anything that could possibly make him beholden to another country or another organization?

This is more than an issue of semantics -- it's the idea behind why the law was created in the first place.

Further, when comparing the number of Nobel Peace Prize winners to the number of people appointed the title of "lord" or sir" -- one can definitely make the argument that the NPP carries MUCH more weight.




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


"giving him a huge tax break" doesn't really matter, he gets 1.4 million and donates 1.4 million = he breaks even tax wise. besides, the president only makes 200k a year. Do you really think money is a problem for the prez? Do you think he pays for anything?
i also don't think he would have any problems getting congress to approve of him getting the award.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

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

This is just more Obama-bashing. Not saying he did or didn't deserve the prize. I wouldn't know about that. But he isn't barred from accepting it.



I beg to differ, the 5 person committee that selects the winner of the peace prize is made up of people appointed by the Norwegion Gov't. Actually it's their parliament with suggestions from the King who appoints the 5 people.


Who selects the Nobel Laureates?
The process of selecting the Nobel Laureates is exclusively handled by the Nobel Prize awarding institutions.

In his last will and testament, Alfred Nobel specifically designated the institutions responsible for the prizes he wished to be established:

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry.
The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
The Swedish Academy for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
A committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) for the Nobel Peace Prize.

nobelprize.org...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Also, if he is awarded the Noble Peach Prize, he won't know who voted for him, for 50 years. that is part of the Noble Peach Prize rules. So he doesn't even know who to be "nice" to as he does not know who voted for him.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
the noble is a joke in the 1st place....

lets give a huge cash prize, and a trophy, for accomplishments yet to be achieved. ( I.E. Im gonna change the world, Ok heres a prize, and some cash, lets see what you can do) ?!?!?!

I dunno about you guys, but I don't give my kids a reward for the talk of being good, they get a reward if they ARE good.

this just seems like a public way to build someone up, for whatever means, theres alot of situations where this prize would yield other opportunities.

My B.S. meter has been broken for a while, or else I could give a reading.

And if this money is being given to charities, then why not this committee vote on how that money is spent rather than the sham of voting someone for a premature award.





[edit on 16-10-2009 by 10001011]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
You might be interested in this thread.
Missing 13th Amendment declares Lawyers ineligible for office
It's along the same lines

-E-



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Back in 1977 my sister and I were sorting through samples my Dad had, he was in the award and recognition business, and we came across 14kt peanut cuff links, tie & lapel pin set. As a joke we sent them to President Carter. To our amazement we received a Presidential Thank You card with a signed note from him. In the the note it stated that he appreciated the gift, but under the law the President can not receive the gifts and all gifts go to the Presidential Museum to be inventoried and/or showcased.

I would think that a Nobel Peace Prize would fall under the same catagory. It is a gift both the award and the money. But, like others on this thread have stated, policy no longer is a issue, it can be changed whenever they want it to be. I agree 100% with Mike, he would have received far more recognition for not accepting the award. After all, what did he do in 2008? The only thing that I remember him doing is making promises that all rational people knew he couldn't or wouldn't keep.
Return the Prize and and award it to someone who really deserves it!



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The nobel committee is not a prince, a king, or a foreign country, so he can most certainly accept the award.
As far as the prize money, that might have to wait till he is out of office since even donating it to charity gives a rather large tax break.

So, award from organizations = fine, prize money = gotta wait for it



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by fleetlord
 


When did a sitting pres. get the award in the past?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive
When did a sitting pres. get the award in the past?


Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both received this award during their second term as U.S. President.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
As far as the prize money, that might have to wait till he is out of office since even donating it to charity gives a rather large tax break.

So, award from organizations = fine, prize money = gotta wait for it


So if a Saudi Prince or foreign government wants to give our pres. money in violation of the constitution, you think its ok so long as he waits until he is out of office? I think a bribe is a bribe regardless of when you receive it! Dont you think?

edit to add: or money recived from organization / corporation ect.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by liveandletlive]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by SaturnFX
As far as the prize money, that might have to wait till he is out of office since even donating it to charity gives a rather large tax break.

So, award from organizations = fine, prize money = gotta wait for it


So if a Saudi Prince or foreign government wants to give our pres. money in violation of the constitution, you think its ok so long as he waits until he is out of office? I think a bribe is a bribe regardless of when you receive it! Dont you think?


Once a person is out of office, they are a private citizen and can get what they want like any other private citizen.

When they get something in office, so long as its not something trivial and token, then it becomes state property.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by liveandletlive
When did a sitting pres. get the award in the past?


Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both received this award during their second term as U.S. President.


Didnt know that, learn something new every day! Links to their acceptance speaches.

www.theodore-roosevelt.com...

nobelprize.org...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


so someone said something stupid and wrong. happens everyday. Using something stupid that someone said to make a point seems to equate to...hmm lemme think, stupid.

He's obviously not any kind of powerful entity, since he can't fix the economy with like religious miracles.




I don't like you making a useless post that doesn't say anything or add to the conversation.


that is all.


Man, someone hurry and make this guy a Super, Super MOD. With that kind of energy, you must be drinking BHO KoolAid non-stop. Put the cup down, it's beginning to blur your vision and thoughts.

BTW, if this is such a waste of your time and bandwidth, why not stroll along to some other site that is desperately waiting for someone with your kind of vast wit, knowledge and authority. We will miss you but hopefully signing praises to the great one will help us get over it. Take your KoolAid with you....

BHO should see this award as something in the "gray" area and accept the award but delay the actual receiving of it until out of office. That is what a stand up guy would do. But this ghetto-wanna-be thug thinks everything runs like Chicago (and Kenya) so why be a stand-up guy? If he was really about more then selling the sheeple (cough..piddles..cough) fun words to hang in their mind (remember hope, change??), he would begin to actually be about change. But as long as you fools continue to drink from his trough, you deserve what you get.

WU-TANG sux...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I read a little on Roosevelt & Wilson. Roosevelt said:

The gold medal which formed part of the prize I shall always keep, and I shall hand it on to my children as a precious heirloom. The sum of money provided as part of the prize by the wise generosity of the illustrious founder of this world-famous prize system, I did not, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, feel at liberty to keep. I think it eminently just and proper that in most cases the recipient of the prize should keep for his own use the prize in its entirety. But in this case, while I did not act officially as President of the United States, it was nevertheless only because I was President that I was enabled to act at all; and I felt that the money must be considered as having been given me in trust for the United States. I therefore used it as a nucleus for a foundation to forward the cause of industrial peace, as being well within the general purpose of your Committee.

Dont know what Wilson did. My point is that "if" your not suppose to accept it, I wouldnt think it would be ok to wait and then accept it.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by liveandletlive]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by piddles
 


BACK ON TOPIC

Point one. I can't stand Obama's policies, politics. I think he's going to ruin this country.

Point two. He wasn't president when he was awarded the Nobel. It is for 2009. Then, he campaigned, was a junior senator, and lied a bucket load.

Point three. The votes were in February 1st. He hadn't done anything yet.

Conclusion, if it wasn't for the fact that he is black, then it was for his promises of disarmament, backing down, wimping out. Two other sitting presidents have won it in the past.

His winning is more embarrassing than him winning it illegally.



And the crows goes wild!! Probably one of the best replies I have seen on ATS. Too bad I only have one star to give you as I would glady give you all of those I have ever been given. Thanks for that!




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I read a little on Roosevelt & Wilson. Roosevelt said:

The gold medal which formed part of the prize I shall always keep, and I shall hand it on to my children as a precious heirloom. The sum of money provided as part of the prize by the wise generosity of the illustrious founder of this world-famous prize system, I did not, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, feel at liberty to keep. I think it eminently just and proper that in most cases the recipient of the prize should keep for his own use the prize in its entirety. But in this case, while I did not act officially as President of the United States, it was nevertheless only because I was President that I was enabled to act at all; and I felt that the money must be considered as having been given me in trust for the United States. I therefore used it as a nucleus for a foundation to forward the cause of industrial peace, as being well within the general purpose of your Committee.

Dont know what Wilson did. My point is that "if" your not suppose to accept it, I wouldnt think it would be ok to wait and then accept it.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by liveandletlive]


Great find. The problem goes back to who the president really is when the cameras are off, the crowds are gone and no one is watching. He is above all of us, we are lucky to have him as our president and anything he accomplishes as president he deserves because it's all about him.

Roosevelt was president when presidents had more class and integrity then they do now. (I said more so spare any history lessons to make it seem like he wasn't better then anyone else.) As you can see from his speech and actions relating to this award, he knew what it was about and knew that it was in that gray area. He did the nobel thing which is why bho buying, errr, winning it is such a disgrace.

No way are the two presidents judged by the same criteria. If they were, one of them wouldn't have it to place next to his kenyan birth certificate.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
It is unbelievable how many of you have plainly responded without first reading the article! How friggin lazy can you be! Apparently you are the ones who think your opinion or emotional reflex responses is more important or meaningful to the rest of us than facts or the original intent of this post.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 


yep, classy move from P Ros. and much in the same way that B Ob has done also (said immediately the cash goes to charity...the state department more than likely will decide where it goes frankly.)

The medal is worthless and invaluable at the same time..a symbol.

Now, if B. O. was to wait until after his presidency was over to accept it all, then that is fully his right...it would of course make him a disgrace in many peoples eyes considering the reason he got it was because of his speeches while running for president.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OverSword
It is unbelievable how many of you have plainly responded without first reading the article! How friggin lazy can you be! Apparently you are the ones who think your opinion or emotional reflex responses is more important or meaningful to the rest of us than facts or the original intent of this post.


What makes you think anyone has or has not read the article in question? what makes anyone believe you have or have not read it?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join