Unconstitutional? Obama 1st US Pres ever to become UN Security council chairman

Old Rome had many good leaders.
but also had totally crazy leaders.

I wonder if the ATS of the times told the people
that the big fire was a government conspiracy. (Nero)

so much for Not repeating History.

reply to post by buddha

I was just reading recently that the senate would not allow NERO to build a favoured shack project there because there was already a lot of stuff built there
so
he burned it all down

What I can't believe is that there are people here that actually believe Big O, or any other president in the last 50 years, has their best interests at heart.

Originally posted by Agent008
reply to post by cripmeister

 

I get that but its still kind of sketchy ya? Does O-Dawg not have responsibility to the USA first?
Its like if the ceo of pepsi went to work at coca-cola for the day, everyone would be like wtf dude?

Its not like that at all. It would be if he took over as Dear Leader (or whatever the title is) of North Korea for a day. This is more like the CEO of Pepsi was the Chairman of the National Soda Corporation Association.

reply to post by cripmeister


What exactly do you mean by that?
The U.N.'s agenda and ours are not the same.
He should be tried for treason and put before a squad.

reply to post by hellobruce


The question is where does his loyalty lie in America?
I think not

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
He should be tried for treason and put before a squad.

Let us not worry about whether he is found guilty - just lynch him is what you want....

What is treasonous about chairing a meeting for 2 hours?

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
The question is where does his loyalty lie in America?

Well, he is a naturally born US citizen, and was elected twice, so as you said, his loyalty lies in the USA!

reply to post by hellobruce


Well for starters we went into Lybia under a un mandate.
According to the constitution you need congressional approval to go to war.
He obviously is loyal to the un as I said.

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
Well for starters we went into Lybia under a un mandate.
According to the constitution you need congressional approval to go to war.

Well, we went into Iraq under a UN mandate.... we went into Korea under a UN mandate.... etc etc.

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by mideast
I think you should be happy that thee peaceful unconstitutional president of US is going to bring peace to the world by any mean.

I am staying awake to see how much peace he is going to bring to the world.

Well..they did give him the nobel peace prize before he even did anything so, i guess that must mean he really is peacefull and his drones fire rainbows and candy at men, woman and children.

Yes , and the fact that he drops house and money and food on the people ,too.

Well said.

reply to post by hellobruce


That's moronic. Bush had congressional approval to go to Iraq.
You are a typical liberal.

Originally posted by below

What say you, we the people? Does the Constitution section 9 not clearly enough state that no 'title of nobility or office to a foreign allegiance be allowed without express consent of Congress?

What is clear, is that to avoid an unconstitutional conflict of interest, liability & nobility, normally the US Ambassador to the UN takes the gavel as chairperson (in this rotation, that would be Susan Rice), not the President him/herself!

"The time has come for the world to move in a new direct. We must embrace.." - Obama's speech to the UN

New World Order! Peace? Non-proliferation? Global economy?

......BEEEEEEEEP.........you're wrong, Obama isn't the president, this guy is
en.wikipedia.org...

it also shows who all the previous presidents were

why do the MODS allow the OP to start a thread, which is a bald-face lie, and easy to check. and he has been a member for 5 days.

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by cripmeister

 

What exactly do you mean by that?
The U.N.'s agenda and ours are not the same.
He should be tried for treason and put before a squad.

did you even verify that he was the president of the UN?.....no, no proof needed, try him for fake treason and put him before a firing squad, are you a north Korean, an Iranian or chinese?? do you know what google is?....are you mentally able to seach the internet? have you heard of a site called Wikipedia? or typed in the little box with "search" near it, the letters "UN" ???

Originally posted by below
What say you, we the people? Does the Constitution section 9 not clearly enough state that no 'title of nobility or office to a foreign allegiance be allowed without express consent of Congress?

Let us clarify for sake of debate and discussion that this pertains to Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; in which it states the following:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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.

This would have to be tested and really never has to this extent. However, examining the usage of the word "State" and cross-referencing it to a widely used dictionary of that time, the Johnson Dictionary states the following; which could be used to reference this line of thinking.

State:
5. The community, the publick, the commonwealth.

-- or --

15. Joined with another word it signifies the publick

We can also examine the Federalist Papers to truly find out what they mean when they wrote the article. Federalist 84, Hamilton writes the following:

Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.

Federalist 39: (emphasis mine)

Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.

Federalist 44:

The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.

Federalist 85:

...the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility

Which leads us to what was considered a "title of nobility". The obvious is: prince, king, queen, etc. After examining Johnson's dictionary, nobility is defined as:

Nobility: Rank or dignity of several degrees, conferred by sovereigns.

- and -

The persons of high rank; the persons who are exalted above the commons

What is clear, is that to avoid an unconstitutional conflict of interest, liability & nobility, normally the US Ambassador to the UN takes the gavel as chairperson (in this rotation, that would be Susan Rice), not the President him/herself!

True. The ambassador is approved via the Congress to serve the title of distinguish via the promotion of the President. For any active participant of our Government to sit in a position of power outside their scope of which they were elected or which the Constitution limits them, it must be approved by an act of Congress.

This portion I am still researching to find out if that authority was delegated to the President as defined by Article I, Section 9 to the president to preside upon the UN council.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag

The NWO is a figment of the imaginations of the overly paranoid basement-dwellers that post here.

Unless you're talking about the professional wrestling faction?

A fine example of a great initial idea that wasn't well thought out, had no sense of internal logic or consistency, was ultimately self-defeating, and will continue to be rehashed into oblivion with each new version being even more watered down than the last.

Sounds like most of the threads on ATS lately.

reply to post by jimmyx


Wow what an idiot I never said that he was the president of the un.
I merely said that he should be tried for treason and put before a squad.
Don't put words in my mouth. If you have a question about my motives then ask.
I can list plenty of acts of treason that this man has committed. The raping of our constitution for one.
And no I'm not from NK are you? Do you even under stand what the word treason means? Your moronic leader will not stop until your rights are gone. You need to wake up and understand that.

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
I merely said that he should be tried for treason and put before a squad.

Again you want him lynched, you do not want a guilty verdict before he is shot, nor do you worry about the fact that there is no death penalty for treason in the USA....

Just another Obama hater who wants him lynched

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
I merely said that he should be tried for treason and put before a squad.

Again you want him lynched, you do not want a guilty verdict before he is shot, nor do you worry about the fact that there is no death penalty for treason in the USA....

Just another Obama hater who wants him lynched

I expect you to stand by me then when I call out all those from about 6-10 (to present day really) years ago who were calling for then President Bush to hang, burn, die, stand for treason, etc, etc.

You are correct to call this person out, I just hope you are equally principled as to not let your ideological love blind you.