Obama Cannot Accept Nobel Without Congressional Approval
Oct 28, 2009 Political
Three members of Congress have written a letter to Barack Obama asking him to demonstrate his devotion to the Constitution by obtaining Congressional approval to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a letter to Obama delivered on Monday, Brown-Waite, R-Fla., along with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, claim the president is obligated under the Constitution to obtain Congress’ approval before he formally accepts the prize.
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, 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.” Topix
The three members claim that the Nobel Committee, which is elected by Norwegian Parliament, constitutes a group representing a foreign state.
Barack Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution (not that you could tell) so he should seek the approval of Congress in order to accept the Nobel. If he requests the approval he will certainly get it as there is no reason for the Congress to reject the request.
One can argue that Obama is not worthy of the prize but that is not for Congress to decide. The decision was that of the Nobel Committee and they awarded it to him.
It is up to Obama to request approval and it is up to Congress to grant it.
Obama swore to uphold the Constitution. Let’s see if he does.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, foreign state, nobel, Obama
The Nobel Appease Prize
Oct 9, 2009 Opinion
Barack Obama was the “surprise” winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As my co-writer Blake points out, he has not done anything to earn it. I have to agree, what has Obama done to earn the award? He has been in office for only nine months and nothing he has done has resulted in any kind of peace.
Even those except his most ardent supporters would have to ask what he has done to get this award.
As far as I am concerned the award means little. It has been given to people who have had little to do with peace including Al Gore (who received his for something that was supposed to be science) and Yasser Arafat (who was anything but peaceful). The award is basically a political award and is used to push an agenda, to give some credibility to the people who espouse the same views of the committee regardless of accomplishment.
The nomination of Obama was made just before the 1 February deadline and only 2 weeks after he took office. What was he nominated for? His acts up to that point certainly did not warrant the prize. If the nomination is for past deeds then he certainly did not qualify.
If it was for the deeds of the past nine months then one has to ask what he has done to earn it. What did he do that made him more deserving than the other nominees who actually have accomplishments in the area of peace? Obama has not brought peace to the Middle East. His relationship with Israel is strained and he has coddled terrorists as well as others who wish to do us harm. He has talked a good game but that is not worthy of the award.
This was purely a political move designed to bolster a man who was hurt by the IOCC and by his continual missteps on the world stage.
I am not saying that Obama would not have a term in office (or work after he is out of office) that eventually led to him actually deserving the award, that is something we cannot know. However, it is clear that he has done nothing, up to this point, to deserve it.
The award has always meant little as far as I am concerned because of some of the folks who received it and more importantly, those who did not. Reagan never received one and he certainly had more to do with peace than Carter, Gore or Obama. But the award has been made political and that tarnishes it, in my view.
If Obama has done anything to earn this award it was his appeasement of our enemies and the rogues around the world who would do us harm.
Perhaps the committee thought they were voting on an Appease Prize*…
*Thanks to my friend Doug Ross for this term.
Others:
Absurd Decision (Times UK)
Mixed Reviews, Embarrassing Joke (al-Reuters)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]