WaPo OpEd Flies Their Obama Derangement Nobel Fetish Flag Freely: Questions Constitutionality of NPP
By Nicole Belle Friday Oct 16, 2009 2:00pm
I realize that there has to be a little more latitude given to op-eds than to straight news reporting, but it seems to me that there has to be a certain level of fact-checking for even editorials for the sake of the credibility of the paper. But then again, maybe WaPo is so deep into their Obama Derangement that they no longer are able to care about credibility.
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.
Like how the authors gloss over that two other sitting Presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize, pretty much obliterating their theory on the constitutionality of awarding such a prize? Boneheads, they blow their own argument out of the water. Their choice of laureate: Iranian election martyr Neda Agha-Soltan, which of course, violates the Oslo committee's rules on bestowing the award to a living person. But hey, if you're going to employ poor syllogism to explain why Obama doesn't deserve it, why worry about things like rules?
Adam Blickstein points out a problem with their thinking:
One problem: the hero of the first Gulf War, Gen. Normon Schwarzkopf, received an honorary Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (which technically makes him a "Knight of the British Empire") in May of 1991 while still on active duty. According to Rotunda and Pham's argument, this violated all kinds of constitutional constraints, Emolument Clause notwithstanding. He retired at the end of August 1991, meaning the General was clearly a foreign agent for the British Empire for approximately 3 months, because how can you be a Knight and an American General at the same time? Where would his loyalty really be? Under this Op-Ed's logic, Schwarzkopf's retirement South should have sent him to the Naval Brig at Charleston, not the golf courses of Florida.
Another government luminary who should have fallen victim to the Emolument Clause as the authors of the Op-Ed envision it? Alan Greenspan, who received his Honorary British Knighthood in 2002 while still serving as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. How could President George Bush sit there idly as the Chairman overseeing America's treasury was more a servant of Britain's Queen Elizabeth than the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? I'm shocked that the entirety of America's money supply didn't end up alongside the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London. But apparently, there was concern in Conservative circles over the legality of Greenspan's ascension in the British Empire. According to Newsmax, the Federal Reserve's General Counsel cleared Greenspan under the Emolument Clause[..].
Even Conservatives acquiesced that a Knighthood was not in violation of the Emolument Clause. I assume the same logic applies to a Nobel Prize.
Is it possible for Conservatives to offer even one well-reasoned argument? Or is it too difficult because, as Colbert says, facts have a liberal bias? Shame on WaPo's editorial board for being so eager to feed their Obama haters. (h/t Ambinder)
Login or Register to post comments.
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because he unseated the "true believers" in America's right to conquer the world through military force - the Neo-Con advocates of the Project for a New American Century.
... and turn down the prize. These arguments that "others have done it" cut no ice with me. What better way to indicate that he and the Democratic party are the real Constitution party than to say "thanks, I'd love to accept, but our Constitution forbids this."?
What better way to solve his political problem than to say "Thanks, but I can't accept this?" (And yes, a Nobel at this stage in his Presidency IS a political problem, like it or not.)
What better way to set a precedent for the future (think of Republicans or fascists who may accept awards from who knows where in the future)? We will always be able to say "Obama earned a prize but declined it... so who the hell do YOU think you are?"
What better way to demonstrate humility... something that I think the man genuinely possesses?
What better way to make a statement about not using public office for personal gain? (And yes, a big deduction on his taxes for a charitable gift is definitely personal gain from public office... sometimes even conservatives can make a legitimate argument. I trust he won't claim it... but why not make a larger statement?)
Standing up and saying that the other side is a bunch of unethical bribe taking agents of foreign empires so Obama should be one too is a really stupid argument, and that's what this blog post above amounts to.
Don't go there. Set a precedent, be a man, show what you are made of Obama. The decision to award the prize can't be undone. Obama has earned that anyway, no matter what he does. Now double its value by turning it down and setting a precedent for many future Presidents and office holders.
This is not a violation of the Constitution and I'm sick of ignoramuses who would have masterbated to Bush winning one making up shit and lying about what is or is not in the Constitution.
You can't help being dumb.
You can choose to not be willfully ignorant, however, and it's pathetic that you don't.
just kidding. Nice smackdown.
but weak in substance. It consist of disagree, insult, insult, accusation, accusation, insult, insult, insult.
Something to be complimenting, if you are speaking on FOX or to a repub.
Sometimes you just gotta call the stupid for what it is.
again.
I'm all about the penumbra of the constitution... it's how we learn all sorts of good things like the right to privacy.
Looking for deeper principles of justice in the Constitution is what we constitutional leftists do.
One way to play the game is to say "they didn't play fair in the past, so we won't be suckers now." That's what this post is based on.
A smarter way to play the game is to grab the opening they are offering and use it against them in the future.
Sorry if that's a little too deep for you. I think Obama might get it, even if you don't.
Obama clearly does get it, but I'm afraid you don't.
The whole purpose of the Peace Prize is to award someone who offers another path that could lead to better brothership and peace between nations.
By taking the lead and voluntarily saying they will reduce our nuclear arsenal and choosing to approach other countries with diplomacy instead of John Bolton is worthy of a NPP in the eyes of the Oslo committee. YMMV.
To refuse it as you have suggested is to be John Bolton all over again. Stupid, ignorant of others' perceptions and just flat out ungrateful.
Sorry if that's too deep for you.
the NPP was a NOT BUSH award and it is intended to influence USA policy. Where is the deep part?
His only real challenge is making the prize mean something. Does he need recognition? Money? Come on.
But he can do something with the prize, a little political jujitsu with the right wing hypocrites. Take them up on their ideas and make it stick for the future. That's 3 dimensional chess.
Life is more than placating god damn Republicans.
This is the Nobel committee saying "Welcome back to the world community. We missed you. You went to a scary place for a while and we're all very happy to see you back on track."
Let the stupid, petty Republicans play these asinine games. Anyone with more than a couple of braincells to rub together can see it for what it is.
That's nice. I like being liked too. But here's another principle that the entire Republican party (and no small part of the Democratic party) is dedicated to: personal benefit from public office.
And now, miracle of miracles the Republicans stand up and say the Constitution itself forbids such benefit. True? False? Not sure it matters in this case. Let's take it, and run with it, and set a precedent we can use.
Obama won't be any less welcomed, and we won't be any less welcomed, and the Republicans will be hoisted on their asinine petards for the future.
Refusing the prize would make it that much bigger of a deal. Further it would undercut his agenda for bringing the US more in line with international organizations. Further, Obama is not receiving a "personal benefit". The money is going to charity.
The only proper way to deal with the award is exactly as he did. He said he was humbled and didn't think he deserved it. Thanks, and the money's going to charity.
Giving the money to charity, assuming as I do that he doesn't take a tax deduction for it, is reasonable, but as a matter of principle the money should not flow to him. He could for example direct the committee to write a check to the US Treasury. A small detail? Of course, but a high principle and an important point. The Head of State represents a government... he doesn't accept awards or offices upon his person. There are plenty of lesser officials who would do well to be reminded of that.
I seem to remember a small hubbub over state gifts given to the Clintons from other countries. They actually remained as possessions of the White House or the Office of the President. They ended up in the Clinton library, I think.
Nicole, maybe in the comments you should use an alias. On the front page I love your writing - have for years.
I'll deal with things my own way. I have little patience for anyone who wraps themselves in completely fallacious and ignorant logic.
and stop dancing with strawmen
You choose to look at the emotion instead of the argument.
all I saw was emotion - void of argument
Which is why I take your criticism for what it is.
my point.
A. The WaPo oped is non-sensical. Any effect of an emolument is rendered moot by Obama's immediate statement that the 1.4 million is going to charity. So, basically, Obama was acknowledged as a peace-promoting guy by a foreign, private party. Big, freaking deal.
B. WaPo acknowledges and then ignores all kinds of precedent. And, whereas, Mike, you can say "two wrongs don't make a right" (and correctly so); precedent is an important determination in Constitutionality.
C. Refusing the Nobel Peace Prize does not demonstrate humility.
D. The UN and the ICC are international organizations that attempt to direct actions by all sovereign governments. The Nobel Committee awarded the peace prize because of Obama's consideration for international organizations. This is a redundant argument.
A- I agree the committee is not government - didn't say they were.
b- I can't wait till President Palin gets her NPP and see if you like the precedent. (not I do not like palin, but it illistrates my point)
c- Obama can't demonstrate humility, he is Prez - a hugh power-trip.
d- Obama needs to work for the USA and not worry what the peeps at the NPP think.
Where is the evidence that Obama cares what the Nobel Committee thinks?
If Palin gets the NPP, I'll say, "meh...whatever." Kind of like I did this time.
Mike2 suggested refusing the Nobel Prize would demonstrate humility - I suggested it would demonstrate hubris. All power trips not withstanding, I don't think your comment makes any sense in the context.
So, with the prize money going to charity explain to me the quid pro quo.
thanks
he stood to take a tax deduction from the donation, although I assume that he would forgo it.
Precedent can be worthy or unworthy... you hardly need me to provide examples of that.
How does turning down a prize not demonstrate humility?
Finally, Obama is the Head of State. He really has no independent existence. The idea that any prize can pry apart the man from his role in this case is more than a little silly. Obama understands this, acknowledged that he didn't really deserve a prize, and would lose nothing in declining it. But he could use turning it down to make an important public policy point about the way in which a public servant is a creature of his or her office, and the things that flow to the person in the course of those official duties do not belong to the person in any way. What better way than to decline the prize? It might be more than he needs to do, but it would certainly make the point dramatically, and that's what real leadership does. He could find the dramatic flourish that makes the point for the ages.
The tax deduction argument is beyond ludicrous. He could only claim a tax deduction if he were to claim the prize as income. In which case it would be a wash.
Stick to arguments you understand.
US Constitution Article I, sex. IX:
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.
So with a Democratic Congress he'll likely get approval, and since it's coming from an international body than it cannot by definition be said to come from any King, Prince or Foreign State.
I already knew you could read. Very nice with the bold. Can you tell us the intent? Think....
Ok I will help you. They didn't have an award committe to include at the time - or they MIGHT have. The intent was to keep the President from accepting bribes and pressure to do ANYTHING. The NPP is trying to convince him to blah, blah, blah. they admitted it... they wanted to encourage him. Article sex is addressing that. So instead of acting like Rove and jumping on some technical bull shit, give us your enlightened theory on undue pressure on the POTUS. thanks.
If the State newspaper of North Korea argues that Obama should pull all troops out of the south, Obama has violated the Constitution?
The Nobel Committee is free to do whatever they want. Where is the quid pro quo?
If the paper gave him the Korean High Medal, and a million dollars, for troop withdrawl, yes it would be wrong. Government employees shouldn't accept dinner out alone a million dollars, that Obama chooses to donate. Hope the next president chooses the same.
So, would you rather the President refuse the money or give it back to Kim Jong Il (to be used to buy Plutonium); or should he donate the money to USAID?
don't worry about being called dumb. That is what they do here when their argument is weak.
I don't think it is specifically barred by the constitution, because the committee is not a government, but by their own admission they are trying to affect our policy, by encouraging Obama.
Funny thing, what Nicolle says about masterbating, etc. I bet she would have shit bricks is Bush would have one one. No doubt.
Well reasoned thought Mike2, get ready for the name calling and snide remarks.
I'm brushing my shoulder as I type...
they are not trying to affect our policy, they are trying to affirm it. it is an endorsement, not an inducement.
but the million+ dollars effects much more than affirms.
So your arguement is that Obama will continue his policies in anticipation of another peace prize? Otherwise where is the payoff in maintaining his policies? That Obama would never have been able to keep the money must have been apparent to the NPP commitee.
Funny thing, what Nicolle says about masterbating, etc. I bet she would have shit bricks is Bush would have one one. No doubt.
You're half right. I'm quite sure that there would have been any number of people screaming bloody murder if the Nobel Prize committee had lost its collective mind and awarded GWB the prize.
But I seriously doubt you would have seen any of those people try to turn it into a Constitutional crisis by suggesting that accepting the award was somehow illegal.
because it DOESN'T. That's the whole point of this post. Did you not read it?
......I would argue that the Nobel Prize Committee is neither a ".....King, Prince or Foreign State."
Problem solved........Constitutionally.
The point is not to fight them, but to accept them and go one step further. It's Akido, not boxing.
Treat the Nobel committee as part of a Foreign Government, by reading the Constitution as the activists that we are and extending its meaning beyond 18th century intention to modern reality.
Set a precedent about private awards to public office holders and hold the Republicans to that precedent in the future.
The Nobel Peace Price Committee isn't a king, prince, foreign government, or head of state. Don't the idiots at WAPO even read what they have themselves just written?
when they wrote the constitution? maybe the intent was to keep the leader unencumbered with foreign influence...? Maybe?
Read the Constitution as an activist not a strict constructionist.
Although I would not disgrace the image of the deity by calling the one worshiped by almost all Christers "Jesus." Pleeze, this guy's name in this age is Jebus. The book he wrote is called the Booble. As throughout history and observed by Voltaire and others, the political power brokers use religion to further their agenda, completely warping and disserving the original prophet's clear intent. It may have been a Freudian slip, but George W. Bush did say we were waging in the Mideast a "crusade." Go figure.
I was completely unaware that the Nobel Prize committees were Kings, Princes, or foreign States.
I gues you can learn things from wingnuts.
The people who vote for the Nobel Prize are a committee that just happens to be in a foreign country. These people just can't hide their stupidity.
when they wrote the constitution? maybe the intent was to keep the leader unencumbered with foreign influence...? Maybe?
but it isn't to run idiotic pieces that appeal only to your last, and die hard readers. You might want to consider how you get people that can read again as a backup plan.
do you mean to say C&L is losing readers? Or the rightwing crazy pubs listed in the story?
as is the democrat defense of the NPP. It was bad for Obama and bad for America. The righties are not too far off here.
In YOUR opinion Obama doesn't deserve to be awarded the NPP. That is fair. Everything else you said ridiculous.
but that isn't my point. I am not on the committee, I don't follow it, and I basically don't care. I do care about progressive thought and the way concepts are addressed. Everyone is flying pissed and acting so... republican. Strawman arguments, insults, etc.
I thing there are points to this being ok and points being negative and I think the negatives way out weigh the positives.
I think Mike2 said it well and I am disheartened that his point of view is being condemed for being NOT like theirs. GROUPTHINK IS GOOD.
There's no groupthink taking place on this blog.
I disagree with Mike because he is parroting right wing nut job talking points and I will ALWAYS disagree with RWNJ talking points.
There's no group coercion into thinking the same way, other than to see these pathetic partisan writers for the illogical petty people that they are and how WaPo has devolved from Watergate to pushing out bovine excrement in 30 years.
Strawman? Physician, heal thyself.
say something that doesn't parrot certain people here and hell comes at you. Insults and snide remarks - no one responding to the statement made. Just like on TV. GROUPTHINK
That's not groupthink.
But you've clearly got your mind made up, so there's no point in discussing it with you.
He's already been on my ignore list for close to a week now.
man I may as well givce up and think exactly like you.
Fri, 10/16/2009 - 16:55 — Nicole Belle
Strawman? Physician, heal thyself.
____________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI
If you don't care so much about the Nobel Peace Prize, how is the awarding of it to our President bad for Obama and bad for America?
You mention the knighthood thing, but I don't remember a single person saying anything about Greenspan getting knighted - and that WAS a foreign sovereign bestowing a title.
that he got the award without deserving it.
We are a society that believes rewards should FOLLOW hard work. Obama being given this award at the onset is distasteful, and I wish the
RepubsGroupthinkers here would at least admit that, but they won't.Alan Greenspan is a traitor, IMO
I can see how awarding a prize to someone who doesn't deserve it reflects badly on the awarder, but I don't see how it reflects badly on the awardee.
I don't think it looks bad on Obama that they awarded it to him. He didn't do anything wrong, unless Michelle nominated him ;)
This is where you continue to make your mistake. Its your opinion he doesn't deserve it. That opinion doesn't make it a fact. Therefore all your conclusions that are based on him not deserving it are faulty.
You say my opinion is my mistake, how? I have other thoughts on the subject. A small side issue is my opinion. I didn't ever think Obama should take my opinion. No mistake, My opinion is well thought out and defensable. Your mistake is ASSuming.
That your opinion that Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel is a fact. Thus when you make pronouncements like: "It is bad for America because it APPEARS that he got the award without deserving it."
It APPEARS that way to you, and others, but that doesn't make it a fact, so your conclusion, that it harms America is flawed.
Can you PROVE he deserves the NPP? Didn't think so. So that part is always going to be opinion. However my list of ways he doesn't reads like C&L review of the bush years.
War in IRAQ
Expanded war in Afpak
Torture
Renditioning
Military Commissions
etc, etc,
Got ANYTHING? And please don't say Starwars being dismantled, because they are removing missles from Russia's border for $$$ and strategic reasons not peace. The WHOLE area gets as good as coverage using submarine launched missles.
I'm not making any wide-ranging conclusions based on my opinion of whether he deserved it or not.
You have an understanding of why the award should be awarded. And by your understanding, he should not be awarded that. Thats fair. However, the committee that does actually award the NPP has their own understanding of how and why the award should be awarded. And since it is factually and specifically their job to make that determination, it can be argued that Obama deserves the NPP simply because the Nobel committee determined he deserved it.
Thats why you fail. You have no say in who gets a NPP, nor in what constitutes deserving one. Thus anything you have to say on the matter is your opinion. Whereas the people who do have a say in who gets a NPP and determine what it takes to deserve one, decided Obama deserved one. Therefore, by definition, he deserved it.
Real arguements with decreasing rather than increasing ad hominem attacks. Thank you for making rational assertions. if I was not so lazy a would go find the latin names for all the points being made. n.b. first line of third paragraph of above post should be 'that's why your arguement fails.' or 'that's why you fail in your arguemnt'
I also am not making any wide-ranging conclusions based on my opinion of whether he deserved it or not. I don't think he did, but there is nothing wide ranged about it. Unless all of the nonpeace things he is actively engaged in or ratcheting up.
See the Pittsburg g20 police state videos? Of thugs protecting bankers, while they carve up our country?
I think the NPP wanted to give it to Obama, I don't know if they think he deserves it. I think they admitted they are trying to influence him to continue his plan.
I am not making arguments for or against Obama being awarded the prize. I do think he should reject it - yes reject.
I think it is political fodder that will come back to haunt the president come election time. It will be just another pebble that they (repugs) will use to build their boulder.
My main point is that most people here get nasty and name call and attack instead of debating points.
I was just shocked, because for the last 4 years or so I have been ok with the comments. But - since obama - people have packed up rational dialogue and resort to name calling, because someone believes differently.
Obama himself deferred credit for the NPP to the american people. He's smart like that. I trust him to play this well, so long as he does not tire.
FilthyHarry, I might be in love. You just made the most logical argument I've read in days.
"However, the committee that does actually award the NPP has their own understanding of how and why the award should be awarded. And since it is factually and specifically their job to make that determination, it can be argued that Obama deserves the NPP simply because the Nobel committee determined he deserved it."
but if one person says something incredibly stupid, and a bunch of other people say "That is incredibly stupid" its not automatically groupthink.
when it is a programmed reflex, without the attending consideration of the argument.
Such as completely disregarding the facts of the case and confusing opinion with fact to say that Obama is constitutionally wrong to accept the award.
You are an excellent example right-wing groupthink. Damn the facts, attack Obama!
I am not right-wing that is silly. I simply said that maybe the constitution intended to protect and forbid external pressure on internal affairs. That is all.
Umm, where are your facts? I see stuff nut no facts. Oh I see your opinions, ok. Thanks.
Who said that Obama should refuse the prize because the constitution forbids it.
however I BELIEVE they would have included political NGO's if they existed in the 1700's.
Hey Europe stay out of USA politics, was the point, I think.
Should we then not award a Pulitzer Prize lest it appear political?
the argument regardless of whether he really believes it. (Surely YOU don't think the Constitution means one thing and only one thing? Surely you accept that it is a document that can be interpreted according to evolving notions of political morality?)
I argued (fairly clearly I think) that he should accept the Republican claim that it prohibited certain gifts and awards, and use it to establish a political precedent going forward.
But it seems to me that a lot of people here are locked in a "Obama good/ Obama bad" boxing match instead of thinking a little more deeply about the larger political picture and how Obama can be become "Obama great" and Obama Transformative. That's what I'm arguing for.
It's been decades since the WaPo had any credibility. It's just a propaganda ragsheet that exists to serve the interests of the self-appointed elites.
Finally, never expect a real apology . . from anyone.
wapo's next question of constitutionality will
be when and where President Obama can take a dump.
i would imagine sitting on their hands would
help if not their faces would be more appropriate.
.
MainStream News in America is driven by PROPAGANDA!
.
.
I know, Acorn was more or less framed and such but you got to hand it to Parker and Stone to make the best of this. In the latest episode "Butters' bottom bitch" Butters applies for low income housing and medicare coverage for his "bitches". The episode is online at the website of South Park Studios.
http://www.southpark.nl/episodes/1309/
(This is the Dutch site of South Park. It's official but maybe this site is closed for foreign visitors. There is an American version of this site at http://www.southparkstudios.com )
Thanks, I saved your link.
My favorite was when Butters tried to be an evil genius villain complete with a Gallactus helmet.
Nicole,
Of course it's NOT unconstitutional for Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson because that works for their argument to ignore this inconvenient fact.
These people have to ignore history so as to carve reality into their fantasy.
I'm hedging these people are accustomed to president's failing on the job:
Bush 1 - "Read my lips..."- FAILURE
Clinton - Impeached(b.j.) - FAILURE
Bush II - Bin Laden who? - FAILURE
They're out searching for any way to see Obama as a successful failure. Isn't that why they see hoping Obama fails as a model of success?
.
is a favorite nutjob sport.
I can understand discussing the relative merits of whether Obama deserved the award or not, but beyond that you're just embarrassing yourself.
But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions
And that makes it Constitutionally different how, exactly? Because the bit they quoted doesn't make that distinction. Either the passage applies to all sitting presidents and it's unconstitutional for all of them, or it doesn't and it isn't.
Also, if someone is going to argue that Obama hasn't actually done enough to deserve the Nobel, how can they then turn around and argue Neda should get it because her tragic murder was caught on video?
The prize isn't awarded by the government, a king or a prince so I guess the arguement is over. Why don't these morons read the thing before they go off on a rant?
"Winning the Nobel Peace Prize means you're unAmerican! Take that!"
It's gonna be a long eight years...Four if a sh*tty health care bill without public option is passed.
Wilson & T. Roosevelt NPP is different because they both had an R behind their names.
But, according to Wikipedia, Woodrow Wilson was a “leading [Republican] intellectual of the Progressive Era” and Theodore Roosevelt “attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism”. This of course means that if either of these two men were alive today they’d both be Democrats.
Wilson was a Democrat.
Hey, jackasses, welcome to the party. Let's talk about the NSA and FISA and the 4th and 5th amendment. What was that about torture? How many times did the previous President attempt to manipulate criminal investigations? Are political operatives in the white house exempt from Congressional subpoenas?
Oh, right... the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Obama is the biggest Constitutional crisis since Bill Clinton.
"It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months..."
What the hell are they talking about? "Important legal questions"? Something tells me they aren't talking about Obama's failure to hold Bush administration officials responsible for lying to Congress, ignoring FISA, detaining citizens and foreigners with no access to counsel and no charges, or instituting a torture regime. They probably aren't even talking about Obama's refusal to immediately close Guantanamo and release internal investigations about torture.
Anybody have any idea what the first incident is about which these assclowns are talking?
Van Jones?
What strikes me as funny, is probably as soon as the 2010 mid-term elections we'll be hearing constant reminders of "Obama Scandals."
Well, according to WaPo, this is his second big Constitutional crisis.
I really want to know what the first was. Accepting a Portuguese Water Dog from a sitting Senator?
Portuguese? That's almost French!!!
Probably when roberts f**ked up the oath of office.
I think is what they are talking about. They say he Taits from here.
I can still see your headlines, but that wouldn't be the case since that issue was of a concern before he became president. His election pretty much decided the matter. The only one trying to carry it on now is oily tits.
Besides which, he was born in Hawaii, one of the states, and even if he wasn't he fits the Natural Citizen requirement (Ius Naturale [short for ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit]/Ius Sanguine), of Article II same as mcgramps.
and they view it as a constitutional crisis. She is just the front stooge, there is money and low-lying power behind her. They are just afraid to show their faces.
I should mention that's Ius Naturale (the natural link between parent and child, and the abstract link between parent and state with British Law precedent referred to and then reworded from Natural Subject to Natural Citizen.
and he is still a natural citizen?
Last time I checked, your mother can also be a parental link. Or does she not count?
doesn't touch the fact that the Nobel Prize committee is in no way a "King, Prince or foreign State." It's a private group composed of private citizens. So it doesn't even fall under the heading the Emolument Clause specifies!
They're just blowing hot air. They can't stand the fact that Obama was honored, and are grasping at any straws the can fin.
Yeah, I read the OpEd yesterday and it is one of the silliest things I've seen in quite a while. You spotted my favorite part as well: the past action/future action bit that excuses Wilson and Roosevelt. Where exactly is that distinction found in Article I?
But the bigger problem with the article is, 'so what'? Parts of the Constitution that enumerate powers between the branches don't usually create criminal penalties. The only body who can make a stink over the Emolument Clause is Congress and, if Congress does nothing, there's no problem. It's not like God, or the federal prosecutor, is going to step in and start putting people in jail (or damning them to hell).
Congress, in another case, is charged with the power to declare war. If Congress chooses, before Korea, Vietnam or Iraq, to put their hands over their ears and let the executive branch decide when we go to war, no one goes to jail. Congress has the ability to enforce their powers, but no one goes to jail if they choose not to.
That said, there may well be something in the US Code that covers the Emoluments Clause but I'm not aware of it. Of all the parts of the Constitution on life-support, that's not one that anyone does much hand-wringing over. There are, of course, half a dozen good legal arguments why this is entirely crap, that accepting a Nobel has nothing to do with the Emoluments Clause, but I had to chuckle over the lack of a remedy. Even if they were right, so what?
http://www.foxfall.com/fm-index.htm
It refers to military medals, but US presidents have the awkward position of being both Commander and Chief of the Military, but in effect the civilian head of the military.
Maybe President Obama could give the award money to george h w and Clenis's Charity; that way three presidents get to share it and one's a republican.
Of course on leaving office some goppers were grumbling, "He really wasn't one of us."
Since according to Article II the president controls most of foreign policy, although Congress regulates foreign trade, and the declaration of war (the Senate), by even discussing the issue are we trying to deny him the right to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit?
We have far greater investigations to be concerned about in possible breaches of national and international law with the last bunch.
but he won't.
At this point it would require federal court officials in the states in which they reside to draw up criminal charges against them, and with boosh in Texas, and chainey I guess in Wisconsin, both solid republican, that's bloody unlikely.
The power to impeach is just the equivalent of a grand jury, the Senate trial like any court trial, but all they can do is remove the officials, who in this care are already gone.
But that's why Obama has to be reelected in 2012, any other person from either party will have an eye on their reelection, but a lame duck can possibly bring back the Civil Rights we've lost, and any investigation, since most violent charges SOL are for 7 years, and one presidential term is four, and there is no SOL for murder (which would probably be limited to those who died under torture).
I just took a massive dump
And I realized it would probably have to be officials of the District of Columbia to bring up cases. But since they have an eye on future appointments and elections, it's again bloody unlikely.
And then on the off-chance that there is a trial, we could spend years untangling the political and legal threads.
I'm for investigation for investigation sake, but people will question the expense and not likely to say it's to possibly change policy, especially when economic conditions are strained as they are.
Federal courts don't charge people, the US Attorney's office does. In this case, you'd probably need a special prosecutor. In any event, it would be federal and it doesn't particularly matter where potential defendants are living or who happens to be Governor.
That said, Wisconsin is run entirely by Democrats and I don't know the last time Dick Cheney was here.
There is no SOL for murder, but murder is a state crime and I don't know of anyone who was tortured to death in a particular state. There are federal laws against torture and war crimes and these don't have SOL either (as a number of suspiciously aryan autoworkers deported over the past 20 years could testify).
So, you're wrong on just about everything but your conclusion. We're not about to start exporting ex-presidents to the Hague.
That's why I said Federal Court Officials, that includes everyone from the Supreme Court on down, including prosecutors in the attorney generals office.
Federal prosecutors are generally divided by region, so when I changed my emphasis from local states to DC that would mean the federal court district of which DC resides in would be the one likeliest to have jurisdiction.
And we've already seen how politicized the agency has become under alberto. Eric Holder would have to fix that before doing much else.
In a word... NO...
look up and find a liberal on this thread with a well reasoned argument. All you will see in LIB talking points, denial, avoidance and insults. So I wouldn't sling mud at the dumbass repubs when our own camp act the EXACT same way.
To quote FilthyHarry:
However, the committee that does actually award the NPP has their own understanding of how and why the award should be awarded. And since it is factually and specifically their job to make that determination, it can be argued that Obama deserves the NPP simply because the Nobel committee determined he deserved it.
Pretty reasonable argument (even if it's not exactly the topic of the article in question).
-Emolument clause does not apply to non-state actors (and yes, NGOs existed in 1789; ask the knights templer)
-Emolument is moot because Obama essentially declined the cash award - would you rather Obama had returned the money instead of giving it to charity?
-Nobel Committee did not attempt to induce future actions as much as commend actions to date.
-Obama had no hand in nominating (asking for) the award, so there's no quid pro quo.
-Precedent forms the interpretation of the Constitution - and Teddy Roosevelt to now is pretty much stare decisis, twice as long as Plessy vs. Ferguson. And the imaginary argument regarding past verses future action is not found in the emolument clause.
And an extra one for you:
Wouldn't this same argument apply to any editorial written by any organization in the world if they implore the President to do (keep doing, or stop doing) any action? (especially, if you remove the money from the equation by donating it immediately) And if just giving any gift from any organization were the new, improved interpretation, wouldn't this apply to thousands of gifts received by the White House? Or maybe it would apply to any campaign contribution given by an agent of a multinational corporation?
The U.S. is a warmongering country led by the nose by the military/industrial complex. Which is a major reason we can't afford First World amenities like health care, but I digress.
_If_ Congress wants to pass a resolution that we ain't no peace country, we're a country of bad ass mo-fos who love war, and Obama should keep his ass inside OUR country, perhaps that constitutional clause _could_ come into effect. Love to watch the Republican Congressional anti-world peace speeches.
As a born and bred Southerner, I can guarantee that if a white president won the Peace Prize there would be no consternation whatsoever. Case closed.
if the white president was bill clinton.
I could not believe it. I was sitting in an internet cafe across the street from Zicatela Beach in Puerto Escondido and clicked on a "Joe Blow Joins You at Tweeter" or some such crap and went to the site and read the the guy was "conservative" and that his last tweet asked, rhetorically, "Obama wins Nobel Prize -- for what?" Needless to say, I did not click the "Allow" icon.
Login or Register to post comments.