posted on May, 4 2013 @ 06:40 PM
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.
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
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
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 prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.
...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.
edit on 4-5-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)