An Unconstitutional Nobel, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 54 times


reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 09:00 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by clay2 baraka


Organized smear campaign?

Too funny, anyone with an ounce of class, honesty, and or integrity can clearly see that the President of the United States did absolutely NOTHING to earn this award.

For pity’s sake, if you really can point to one solid accomplishment that the President has achieved or is even actively working on with any credible chance of success that deserves a Noble Peace Prize…POST IT!

Since the President has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to earn a Nobel Peace Prize then it ABSOLUTELY BECOMES SUSPECT the moment he is awarded one.

It becomes so suspect in fact that the only thing his supporters can do is offer pseudo intellectual babble and some vague notion that the Nobel Prize is now part of some affirmative action program and just because a President has done NOTHING to have won one, does not mean he is not ENTITLED to one.

Meanwhile intelligent honest people with integrity are going to naturally ask is this some kind of a bribe or a pay off since the President has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to earn a Nobel Peace Prize.

Rational and reasonable people are going to look at things like the Constitution to see if it provides a safeguard against such situations for the protection of the nation’s integrity.

The President of the United States is not the nation, we the people are the nation. It is not the integrity of the President of the United States that should be our primary concern; it should be the integrity of us the people who are the nation.

I would not accept this award and I have probably done more to further world peace than the President of the United States has.

I have integrity though, and no pseudo intellectual argument can mask the fact that the President HAS DONE NOTHING to earn this award.


reply posted on 16-10-2009 @ 11:23 PM by SheaWolf
reply to post by dbates


The government being what it is, Obama will get to keep the prize, though he shouldn't.

This is the only thing I find that they could possibly think he should get the Nobel for:
"one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"


What I find most interesting is the timing of it all is this;

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee then bases its assessment on nominations sent in before 3 February.[11] The submission deadline for nominations for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Economics is 31 January.[12] Self-nominations and nominations of deceased people are disqualified."

So, with these deadline dates and Obama's activities up until that time...he hadn't done a thing to deserve such an award. Also...who had the forethought to nominate him so prematurely?

Yet another reason to look at our present administration with suspicion and distrust.

Excerpts from: en.wikipedia.org...



reply posted on 17-10-2009 @ 08:47 PM by Udanax
reply to post by Remixtup


You write that as if you believe that our government really gives a crap about the Constitution.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 11:34 AM by CharlesMartel
Originally posted by dbates

An Unconstitutional Nobel


www.washingtonpost.com
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)


Related News Links:
www.huffingtonpost.com

If he can't legally accept the money, then he cannot donate it to his favorite charity (probably an ACORN affiliate). The money belongs to the US Treasury. It is not his to give away.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 05:40 AM by Pazzerz
reply to post by dbates


You showed us this:

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."

Definition, Emolument: compensation received by virtue of holding an office or having employment

This ‘prize’ does not come from any of the above stated in your original post.

The actual emoluments clause is located at Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution which states:

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.

From the Wikipedia:

The purpose of the clause is twofold:

1) to protect separation of powers by ensuring that no member of the Executive or Judicial Branches of the Federal Government could simultaneously serve in the Legislative Branch, and

2) to prevent Congress from conspiring to create offices or increase federal officials' salaries with the expectation that members of Congress would later be appointed to these posts.

So, WTF??? What’s your point?? It looks like the info you got was totally misrepresented. Sounds like a conspiracy, man....
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^