It is Unconstitutional for Obama to Accept the Nobel Prize
Obama was granted to Nobel Prize for the promise that he would rid the US of its nuclear weapons. But according to the constitution, such an award is essentially a bribe, and if Obama accepts it, he could be impeached.
From the WashingtonPost here:
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.”
The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson’s work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament.
Second, the president has indicated that he will give the prize money to charity, but that does not solve his legal problem. Giving that $1.4 million to a charity could give him a deduction that would reduce his income taxes by $500,000 — not a nominal amount. Moreover, the money is not his to give away. It belongs to the United States: A federal statute provides that if the president accepts a “tangible or intangible present” for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift “shall become the property of the United States.”
I have been on both sides of the Federal workforce, both as a government employee and as a contractor. And as part of the orientation for any job dealing with the government there comes the strongest warning possible to not accept or give gifts to a Federal employee as it would appear to be a bribe at worst or unethical at best. I mean, you can’t even buy anyone lunch if its more than ten bucks.
So this means that if Obama accepts this award based on future performance, how is it not a criminal act? And if it is a criminal act, he should be impeached. Not that the Democrats in charge of the Senate will bring charges, but it is a crime nonetheless.
As if Obama gave a damn about the Constitution…or the US…or anyone living here. Unless of course they like the taste of his boot leather…bow down to the Won and be blessed.
Anyone notice that he visits only those states that voted overwhelmingly for him? Red states get the back of his hand.
Obama is a liar and Truth is
killing his Marxist agenda.
It is not a criminal act because it is not from a king, prince or foreign state. And even if it were, all it takes to make it legal is the consent of congress. He is the third sitting president to be awarded. If he never uses the deduction, then it will not matter. This is a fairly thin argument.
Not from a foreign state? Well then tell me genius…when did Norway become a part of the United States?
This is at least the second time that Obama has ignored the Constitution. On June 3, 2009, the day before he gave his speech in Cairo on relations with the Muslim world, he accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, Saudi Arabia’s highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah. Does that count there Common Sense? (Quite the ironic name you chose there…) (President Bush was awarded the Order in January last year.)
Aside from whether a president shows questionable judgment in accepting any preferment from the House of Saud named for its anti-Semitic modern founder, the Collar is clearly a chivalric “order” of the Saudi monarchy conferring a rank in that system of titled royalty and nobility. It is not a mere decoration or campaign ribbon. There does not seem to be any record of congressional permission asked for, much less granted, for the president to accept it. Washington, Madison and Hamilton would have clearly understood that the Abdul Aziz Order falls under the same ban they had in mind for any public officials coveting awards made under the honors system of the British monarchy.
He is NOT the third sitting President to receive the award.
No SITTING President has ever received the Nobel…until now.
Indeed…all he has to do is have Congress rubber stamp it for him and all is forgiven. So why hasn’t he done so? Because the Constitution means nothing to him…nothing. He could not care less.
Obama is a liar and Truth is
killing his Marxist agenda.
Oops…my mistake. Shoulda looked it up first…
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson’s work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action.
My apologies…
Congress must approve it, and they should try to do so. It would make for lots of drama on Capitol Hill. Can you imagine the outcry against approving this?
Norway is a foreign state. The nobel commission if a foundation. Let me explain for the alaskan. State in this context would be government. So it is saying no king, prince, or foreign government. So if he donates to charity, and does not claim the tax deduction, my guess would be that it is not illegal, with or without congressional approval. Even if it was questionable, no one would ever bring an action against him. Te argument would be “how dare you take that money and donate it to charity”… And Pat – you are kidding yourself if the congress would not pass this resolution if it went before them – and republican after republican standing up there criticizing the nobel decision would look ridiculous – and in the end the resolution would pass anyway. I thought McCains comments about the peach prize was fairly good.
And yes alaska – you should actually look things up… it helps you not to look stupid.
It’s the award not the cash. So the foundation is stateless? It just floats around on some boat in the ocean without a country? No one claims it…it just is…
You don’t think that’s stupid?
Even if it was questionable? Umm…why do you think we and many others are discussing this? Because it is questionable. Get it?
Insults were initiated by you…so piss off.
OK – if you do not understand the difference between a nation state and a foundation, then there is really nothing to discuss. Your arguments are baseless and without merit. The “prize” is the money.
Well, the Nobel committee is comprised of former members of the Norwegian Parliament, which is pretty left leaning, which explains why so many leftists are awarded the Peace Prize. But it is a politically appointed organization of the nation of Norway. The Nobel Foundation holds the money, but the award is granted by a Norwegian political committee.
And Congress should debate this. It may look stupid for Republicans to argue against it, but it will look equally stupid for Democrats to defend the award going to someone who has done nothing thus far to deserve it. Of course it would pass, but its the food fight I would enjoy.