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.
Serious question.
"Mr. Obama sat in New York as chairman of the Security Council — a first for an American president, meant to symbolize his commitment to rebuilding the Council’s tattered authority."
www.nytimes.com...…
The president did not just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the leader holding the gavel for the month.
The rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th.
But, the U.S. Constitution States that:
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9 - 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.
No U.S. President has ever served as Chairman of the U.N. in it's 65 year history. The U.N is a foreign state (a collection of foreign states actually). Did Congress grant approval for Obama to receive this title (Chairman of the U.N. Security Council) and I missed it? Is it Constitutional for Obama to be President of the United States AND Chairman of the U.N. Security Council at the same time? Is this a conflict of interest?
Has Obama violated Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution?
Before the Leftists start screaming "racism" or the Conservatives start jumping on the band-wagon...please think it out. This is a serious question I have here. Thanks in advance for any thoughtful answers I receive.
Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Actually it should be constitutional since the US is a signatory to the UN charter with the advice and consent of the senate since the founding of the UN.
Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945
[edit on 9/18/2009 by DarkStormCrow]
Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
However, when confronted with it, congress would undoubtedly vote for the Pass...
The Permanent Representative (ambassador) of the state that holds the presidency is usually the president of the Council, but if an official from the state who is higher in authority than the Permanent Representative (such as a foreign minister, prime minister, or head of state) is present in the Council, the higher official is the president. For example, in January 2000, a month in which the United States held the presidency of the Security Council, U.S. Vice President Al Gore headed the United States delegation to the United Nations for a few days. As a result, Gore was the President of the Security Council during this time.
But the interview was more than just another “60 Minutes” puff piece. Four-star battlefront generals don't put on dog-and-pony shows for reporters without a very good reason for doing so, and he put on a very fancy show for Martin, with stops at his room, his office, his briefing room, trips in his helicopter and SUV, and much more. It’s difficult to imagine that McChrystal’s reason was anything other than putting pressure on the Obama administration to give him the series of very large troop increases he thinks he needs to win his war.
Article 2, Section 2
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Article 1, Section 6
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.