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: 7
54
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
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.




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Roadblockx
 


you owe me a reply with at least an apology



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
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...



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
AND his Czars.


Bush had them too.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
In the words of Ron Paul:

"It's internationalism and world government"

It's hard to deny that winning a price such as this changes one's status in the world and does impart the title of "Nobel Laureate". However, the timing of this award can be nothing other than an instance of "World Government" as Mr. Paul stated. Given this fact, I don't think the Constitution of just one country is really of much concern to the puppet masters.

Winning this award doesn't give him anything other than the advantage of calling himself "Nobel Laureate Obama" which goes a long way in the minds of the common man and will certainly help "Them" convince us that whatever he does, he does it for peace and the well being of all.

Obama is no longer just the President of the United States but he is a president of the world and this shows his concerns to be beyond that of domestic governance.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I dislike this Obama fella as much as anyone. But it is not a constitutional thing. If he wants to accept it, fine by me. Have at. The award is an empty political statement. He is the poster boy of empty political statements. Seems like a pretty good match to me.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Remixtup
 


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



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Other presidents have won the prize in the past. There is nothing unconstitutional about winning an award that was conceived after the framers drafted the constitution.

People need to get over themselves, and stop getting so upset every time Obama has a success.

Bridging the way for US Middle East relations and and calling for reduction of nuclear arms and non-proliferation is well deserving enough of the award. Anyone else who saw the speech he gave to the Muslim world would agree.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
If Obama has broken the Constitiution in any way can't he be impeached?



He is so arrogant .

Everyday he is changing our country in some way. He ignores what the people wants and goes full steam ahead changing things.

I've lost hope that anything will stop him.

I hardly ever hear about Michelle Obama .

She is working at a breakneck speed behind the scenes in her little office organiziing this "serve " agenda. This is her main project and has been from day one.

These two people are a team , working together to bring this country down to it's knees and it seems like they are succeeding.

My God, if they have accomplished this much in 10 short months can you even imagine what will be accomplished 38 more months??

I can't hardly look at the 2 of them on tv now and I turn the sound down so I don't have to hear their awful voices ..

He sounds like a broken record anyway.


GOD HELP US ALL.


[edit on 20-10-2009 by MagicaRose]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





Weakness at its most obvious. The selective moderating has spoken.
Lesson here boys and girls, only certain ones can get away with things and ATS is no different. How sad.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
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....



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join