Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize is unconstitutional

[ericire12]

But hey, when has that ever stopped Barry from doing anything:





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

By Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham
Friday, October 16, 2009

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

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. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an "emolument" ("gain from employment or position," according to Webster).

An opinion of the U.S. attorney general advised, in 1902, that "a simple remembrance," even "if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of 'any present of any kind whatever.' " President Clinton's Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns." This opinion went on to say that the emolument clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.

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."

This is at least the second time that Obama has run afoul of the emolument clause. 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. (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, there is another issue: 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 this bauble. 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.

Taking President Obama at his word that the Nobel award is "an affirmation of American leadership," Congress should allow him to accept the award. The prize money, which legally belongs to the United States, ought to be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit.

As for the Abdul Aziz Order, Congress should withhold approval and return the chain -- until the Saudis show their support for international peace by recognizing the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders. That would honor Alfred Nobel's desire to promote "fraternity between nations" and fulfill the intent of the Framers that congressional approval would guard against attempts by foreign governments to meddle in American politics by dangling presents, titles or any other emoluments in front of our public officials.

[MikeBjerum]

Besides the point that the Constitution does not apply to Pres. BHO, you need to remember that he is really networking for a position once he sells this country down the river.

[ericire12]

Besides the point that the Constitution does not apply to Pres. BHO, you need to remember that he is really networking for a position once he sells this country down the river.

Thats all any president ever does.... The amount of money that they make after leaving office is disgusting..... But then again, all those "public servants serpents" in Washington are rolling in money.

[TAB]

Forget the US cons, if he had any self respect, he would not except it.

[ericire12]

Forget the US cons, if he had any self respect, he would not except it.

I'd listen to TAB. I mean, he must know his stuff on this subject - his current avatar.....

[Sponsor]

[ratcatcher55]

What did Teddy and Wilson do with their money?

[ratcatcher55]

TR did not actually pick up the prize money (or the prize itself) until 1910, when he visited Europe after his African Safari. He did not feel right accepting the prize while he was in office. TR wore an old fashioned suit with a top hat when he went to get the award. He picked up the prize in Christiania, Norway, on May 5, 1910 and part of his speech to the Nobel Prize Committee is as follows:

"I think it eminently just and proper that in most cases the recipient of the prize should keep for his own use the prize in its entirety. But in this case, while I did not act officially as President of the United States, it was nevertheless only because I was President that I was enabled to act at all; and I felt that the money must be considered as having been given me in trust for the United States. I therefore used it as a nucleus for a foundation to forward the cause of industrial peace, as being well within the general purpose of your committee; for in our complex industrial civilization of today the peace of righteousness and justice, the only kind of peace worth having, is at least as necessary in the industrial world as it is among nations. There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships."

TR's idea for an industrial peace foundation never came to be. By 1918 it was clear the the foundation would not go forward. Instead, during World War I, he donated the funds to war relief efforts.

In his book, "The Lion's Pride", Ed Renehan, Jr. writes,

[tombogan03884]

 The Constitutional prohibition is irrelevant. It clearly states " from any King, Prince or foreign State."
The Nobel committee may be composed of politicians, but it is empaneled as a PRIVATE organization.

[ericire12]

The Constitutional prohibition is irrelevant. It clearly states " from any King, Prince or foreign State."
The Nobel committee may be composed of politicians, but it is empaneled as a PRIVATE organization.

From the article:

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state.

[tombogan03884]

From the article:

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state.

That is only partly correct. The Commission is composed of members of what , for Nobel also was, the Foreign (and Neutral ) Govt. of Norway acting as a pool of  his authorized agents.
They are not functioning in a "legislative" manner (in the Name of Norway ) but as Legal representative's for a private individual and only for the express purpose of picking diplomacies MVP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Nomination_and_selection

Read the article, but I wanted to post a couple of high lights ;

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my expressed wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.
   ”

—Alfred Nobel, Alfred Nobel's Will[6]


Looks like they don't drink all their kool ade

FTA
The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize. For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations. U.S. President Barack Obama was nominated by the February 1, 2009 deadline,[15] and then elected for the award just 8 months into his administration. The case has been criticized in that future events are yet to be recognized, as the prize was awarded on hope that Obama would yet deliver concrete peace dividends. Siv Jensen, leader of Norway's main opposition party the Progress Party, has stated that "It is just too soon... It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results."[16]