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: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
What a train wreck this issue has become.

The point of the Constitutional reference seems quite clear to me.

As the executive representative of the republic, it is very wise to include constraints that would remove, or at least severely constrain, the ability of external interests, namely those outside our 'sovereign law', to influence or control the pilot of our representative government.

The point was intended as a safeguard against surreptitious intrigue; the peddling of power 'beyond the title' we, as citizens, entrust to the President.

Unless one is willing to go so far as to suggest that in our world (the world of information) that could happen, there is nothing to fear here. Our president is no more or less effective or important because of the 'prize'. The merit heaped upon the award has been forever diminished by the foul consumer marketing used to peddle it's value.

As far as the award money, well; people have had to contend with that 'burden' in the past. Some more honorably than others. But I trust that congress need not be involved unless some grave abuse is detected.

I agree with the Constitutionalists who see that money as a trust of the American people; but I recognize that such a statement is an opinion, just as those of any who think otherwise. It is a matter of choice.

Why this always seems to degrade into people assuming it's about the cult of personality, or the anti-cult of personality is ALSO a matter of choice.

I would hope we could chose otherwise, because we can't waste our time debating someone choice when they haven't made it yet.

BTW - slightly off topic - I want to suggest to the Nobel committee a way to restore the stated purpose of the award without destroying the integrity of the intent: Award the winners 3-5 years AFTER they win. Give out the 2010 award in 2013.... or some such approach..... I think you'll find much credibility restored ... by 2015.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Maxmars]




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


President Obama isn't the first sitting U.S. President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It's happened twice before, and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps they'll rule it unconstitutional this time, though, because he is black.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
When Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won the award, they were both well into their second term as President and it was pretty obvious what their opinions were at the time. I have wondered before if the Nobel prize was an attempt to push Woodrow Wilson into getting the U.S. to sign onto a peace treaty with the European nations.


I agree with you on this one, however I'm wondering why you started the issues of "non-constitutional" acceptance of the prize with Mr.Obama, not with Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, which in fact do set a historic AND legal precedent. Unless you analyze Roosevelt's case in all detail, you logically should stay away from Obama.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
If a foreign paper called Obama the man of the year, and gave him a badge and a 25$ prize, same thing...accept the award, toss the 25$ in the state kitty.

unless the paper was state run of course, in which case, it could enter into a gray area.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at Bethel University in St. Paul



At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.


Link



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
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 is stop foreign govts and / or corporations / special interests from setting up similar cash "prize" awards and handing them out to politicians? If this were allowed the offices of the 2-party failures would all need aircraft hanger sized trophy cases, and a legal team to deal with the prize money.

The noble peace prize is a trinket and cash given away subjectively by people appointed by another nations "leaders", so called.

Websters defines prize: "something offered or striven for in competition or in contests of chance;."

I say some of us pool together a $12.50 and issue a press release that obama has been awarded the 'puppet clown of the year' prize. We can photoshop an official looking certification and I'll use a sharpie to re-brand an old baseball trophy I got when I was 12.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I actually think it's a bad idea in any case. In both of the previous instances the award was given out to Presidents who appeared to be inclined to make treaties with Europe. Luckily in Woodrow Wilson's case the power in Congress shifted during his second term and he was unable to carry through with his plan.



Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to enunciate American war aims--the Fourteen Points, the last of which would establish "A general association of nations...affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike."

But the election of 1918 had shifted the balance in Congress to the Republicans. By seven votes the Versailles Treaty failed in the Senate.

www.whitehouse.gov...


I'm not discussing this issue but for the question of allegiance and intention on how this might affect future relations with other nations. In general I think it's a bad idea for any President ever to receive gifts, titles, or any sort of compensation for doing his job. No matter who it might be from.

What makes this instance more nerve-racking is the control that the President's party currently has over both houses of Congress. He could probably push through a great deal of legislation if he had the mind to do so.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by dbates]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by dbates
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.


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.


Exactly. The Nobel Peace Prize is a prize, not a title. Problem solved.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicholaswa
reply to post by dbates
 


President Obama isn't the first sitting U.S. President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It's happened twice before, and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps they'll rule it unconstitutional this time, though, because he is black.



still waiting for somebody to acknowledge this post...

how is this any different than when Roosevelt or Wilson won the prize during their presidencies?

this post will be ignored as well, of course. there's no goddamn place for sense or reason on ATS any more.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
how is this any different than when Roosevelt or Wilson won the prize during their presidencies?

You have to be careful when making this assertment since your basing your defense on the argument that it's not wrong because someone else got away with it. As an example telling a police man that the two people in front of you were driving the same speed will not get you out of a ticket. The law is the law. Perhaps a different angle of analysis should be taken?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 
I agree. the patriot act changed everything.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates


Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "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."
(visit the link for the full news article)


I think you just answered your own question.
I don't think that the organization that gives away the Nobel prize is either a King, Prince or foreign State.

So he can get the prize no problems.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoofMonkey
Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at Bethel University in St. Paul



At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.


Link


So, the thread about a constitutional issue with accepting awards is in your mind actually a discussion about climate control.

you purposefully threadjacking or just hit the wrong button when creating a new thread?

Mods....???



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram

Originally posted by nicholaswa
reply to post by dbates
 


President Obama isn't the first sitting U.S. President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It's happened twice before, and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps they'll rule it unconstitutional this time, though, because he is black.



still waiting for somebody to acknowledge this post...

how is this any different than when Roosevelt or Wilson won the prize during their presidencies?

this post will be ignored as well, of course. there's no goddamn place for sense or reason on ATS any more.



I think nobody will acknowledge it because it is not based in reality
1) Obama isnt black, he is mixed
2) He will get the award with no problem, the only potential issue is how the cash prize is handled
3) this entire thread was solved within a matter of 3 posts when it was discovered by the great wizard powers of google that Nobel is not a prince, king, or foreign nation and therefore does not apply.
4) If there is any mention of Nobelgate or Nobelers (like the tea baggers), I may vomit a little in my mouth



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think that many of you are missing the point.

"Titles" when given by a government actually bind you to a certain level of obedience. For example if the Queen in England grants you the title of Knight, you are technically sworn to defend her and her realm, even if you never actually learned to fight in your life.

The Nobel Prize is just that - a prize. It does nit bind him to any course of action, nor does it compel obedience or fealty upon him in any way.

The monetary prize is forfeit though. The law seems pretty clear on that, although he could get around that by arranging to defer the award until after he leaves office, or by giving it to a third party with the understanding that they owe him in the future.

But in reality the $1.4 million prize is just peanuts compared to the money he will receive from book, movie, speaking, and merchandising deals once he leaves office.

So if I was him, I'd play it safe and let the government keep all of the dough.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Umm as I posted a few pages back the Noble award committee is appointed by a foreign gov't. The other Noble prizes are awarded by various science groups. This one is different.

I haven't decided if he should be allowed to accept or not because the rules are grey. I just think the rules need to be investigated and followed.

Lastly I'm not going to debate the previous ones as wasn't alive then and both of those winners are dead, so it's a mute point.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I'm going to rip you a new one:


Originally posted by Roadblockx

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.


1.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.

2.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....

3.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.

4.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.

5.WU-TANG sux...


oh god

1. Kool-Aid? My Barack Hussein Obama Kool-Aid? I don't like where this is going.

2.I love this site, to the point where I would work to support MEANINGFUL conversation. You think by me calling someone out for not really saying anything at all (which would hold a great deal of politicians accountable if applied to the real world) and not helping to further the pursuit of the truth is bad? It's kind of like some annoying guy who just makes comments to upset you (not you, literally).

3.no, a stand-up guy would accept an award if it was given to him and be very humble about it. It's been said that even he was surprised by it.

4. You are straight up attacking me. First off, I'm not black which is what you are obviously assuming. You think because I listen to hip hop music and like a black president that I'm some kind of kool-aid drinking stereotype, as well as some kind of menace to society?

are you racist or just stupid?

5.Um you're entitled to your own opinion to whatever you want but judging my whole persona based on...my signature? and making racist comments that aren't even applicable to me?



seriously, I strongly suggest re-evaluating your beliefs as to what kind of person supports the president and hope you will rise from your racist ignorance.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by piddles]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Someone else does it, no one cares. Obama does it and people throw a tantrum. It seems racists... and I hate playing that card. But it's true, anything the black guy does gets labeled as being evil and bad while the white guys that did it already get praised. This hypocrisy is ridiculous and is the reason why so many view the hater movement as a bunch of redneck racists, no matter what the truth may be.

Educated persons of any ethnicity or background who have legitimate arguments against Obama gets massed together with the confederate flag wielding, shot gun touting, skin head, racist screaming for Obama's assassination while watching Fox. We get divided more and more, making us easier to control and manipulate.

The NWO/TPTB thank you so very much.

Everyone else hates you
/sarcasm



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I agree with you on this one, however I'm wondering why you started the issues of "non-constitutional" acceptance of the prize with Mr.Obama, not with Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, which in fact do set a historic AND legal precedent. Unless you analyze Roosevelt's case in all detail, you logically should stay away from Obama.


The reason is because this thread was just a regurgitation of right-wing talking points (that strangely enough) excluded references to past presidents. . Why would they do that?. .


I think the OP was probably not even aware of Wilson's or Roosevelt's acceptance at the time of this thread creation. I very much doubt the OP was being racist.

However, I do think there is something to be said for the organized smear campaign that was the inspiration for this thread. The goal of such campaign is usually to obfuscate the facts and leave an "impression" of impropriety among a target audience of non-fact checkers. Spreading this kind of disinformation serves a greater strategic win in the long run, as individual claims are proven false time-after-time and are long forgotten. Yet in the end, the target audience is left with an emotional impression. . .

This is how disinformation wars are won.

The only reason this thread was not moved to "Political Madness" is beyond me.


(The inspiration)

Conservatives argue emolument clause bars Obama from accepting prize

Rotunda, Pham in Wash. Post: Prize "belongs to the United States," should be used for "reducing the deficit." Chapman University Law professor Ronald Rotunda and Peter Pham, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), wrote in an October 16 Washington Post op-ed that Obama "has run afoul of the emolument clause" since "the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state," and the Constitution requires congressional consent for such a gift. Rotunda and Pham recommended that the prize money "be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit." They further asserted that Obama's acceptance of "the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit" from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia violated the Constitution and that the gift should be returned until the Saudis "recogniz[e] the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders." Rotunda previously advised Ken Starr during the Clinton administration, and Pham now works with FDD, a notably conservative think tank. FDD president Clifford May previously served as communications director for the Republican National Committee. In 2007, May appeared in the media several times to defend the Bush administration's conduct in the Iraq war without disclosing that FDD had received at least $1.2 million in State Department grants, or that he advised then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on democracy promotion.

Washington Examiner's Freire: Prize "is precisely the sort of lobbying the Framers were concerned about." In an October 9 post, J.P. Freire asked, "Can a sitting president receive a Nobel Peace Prize?" Citing both the emolument clause and a section of the U.S. code, Freire concluded that "to play it safe ... [Obama] should have Congress do a quick vote to allow him to accept the award." Freire also stated that "the law definitely appears to discourage this sort of thing" and added in an October 12 post that "y coincidence, Federalist Paper No. 22 uses Sweden as an example of the ability of foreign powers to meddle in domestic affairs. (At various points, Sweden and Norway have shared power, with Sweden running foreign affairs while Norway ran domestic affairs.)"

Politico's Gerstein forwards Bush official's legal "concern[s]." In a Politico blog post, Josh Gerstein wrote that "[g]overnment ethics experts said [Obama] would be ill-advised to keep [the prize money] or even to turn it over to charity." But Gerstein cited only Richard Painter, an ethics counsel under President Bush. Gerstein quoted Painter's statement that "[t]urning the gift over to charity is something we usually would advise against in the Bush Administration," and that the emolument clause "is a concern. ... [S]eems to me if I were giving him counsel I'd say accept the prize without the money." [Politico, 10/9/09]


[edit on 10/16/2009 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join