Moderator: Community Team
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... gresswomanAs critics continue to mull over whether President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite says the U.S. Constitution does not allow him to accept the award without the consent of Congress.
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."
The five-member Nobel commission, which awarded Obama the prize earlier this month, is elected by the Norwegian Parliament -- the Storting. The award is therefore made by a group representing a foreign state, the writers argued.
"As the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, the Storting, the prize is clearly subject to the requirements set forth in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Obtaining permission from Congress should be straightforward," Brown-Waite wrote in the letter.
"I urge President Obama to affirm his devotion to our Constitution and seek the consent of Congress before accepting the award in Oslo, Norway, on December 10," she said.
Are you fucking serious? I hope you're kidding.notyou2 wrote:LOL......don't the people of America have something better to do than dredge up crap???
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Expecting our President to follow the Constitution of our nation is "dredging up crap"? Huh.notyou2 wrote:LOL......don't the people of America have something better to do than dredge up crap???
told ya, socialist trophy and nothign more. oh, al gore? oh, teddy roosevelt? wow wilson too? hmmmmm 2+2 still = 4 awesomenotyou2 wrote:LOL......don't the people of America have something better to do than dredge up crap???
Didn't Carter win the Nobel Peace Prize?
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
I f*cking hope so, seeing how it was not meant in the context the whining crybaby republican morons are citing. Suck it up cup cakes.Night Strike wrote:This is epic............
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... gresswomanAs critics continue to mull over whether President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite says the U.S. Constitution does not allow him to accept the award without the consent of Congress.
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."
The five-member Nobel commission, which awarded Obama the prize earlier this month, is elected by the Norwegian Parliament -- the Storting. The award is therefore made by a group representing a foreign state, the writers argued.
"As the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, the Storting, the prize is clearly subject to the requirements set forth in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Obtaining permission from Congress should be straightforward," Brown-Waite wrote in the letter.
"I urge President Obama to affirm his devotion to our Constitution and seek the consent of Congress before accepting the award in Oslo, Norway, on December 10," she said.
So will the exact wording of the Constitution be ignored again?
Just to note, I really don't care if he excepts the prize, it just bothers me that he was nominated soley for saying he was going to do stuff. Previous Presidents, if I am not mistaken, had actually accomplished something before being nominated and actually being awarded the Peace Prize. That is what bothers me.got tonkaed wrote:Thats a wonderful example of very poor political manuvering to appeal to some constiutents on an issue that really has no weight.
Only under an overly literal interpretation would such an issue have any merit at all. I would imagine the founding fathers would have little complaint about someone winning a price for peace. I have a feeling they were a little more concerned about someone becoming the king of somewhere else.
Just a chance for a few people to grandstand and waste some breath during a time where there are plenty of worthwhile things on the table to discuss.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Just to note, I really don't care if he excepts the prize, it just bothers me that he was nominated soley for saying he was going to do stuff. Previous Presidents, if I am not mistaken, had actually accomplished something before being nominated and actually being awarded the Peace Prize. That is what bothers me.got tonkaed wrote:Thats a wonderful example of very poor political manuvering to appeal to some constiutents on an issue that really has no weight.
Only under an overly literal interpretation would such an issue have any merit at all. I would imagine the founding fathers would have little complaint about someone winning a price for peace. I have a feeling they were a little more concerned about someone becoming the king of somewhere else.
Just a chance for a few people to grandstand and waste some breath during a time where there are plenty of worthwhile things on the table to discuss.
Okay, irratates. (look, I'm stuck at home, sick with Mono, I really don't have much to do at the moment but I digress) It just pains me that something that should be awarded for great accomplishments is now being used as a favoritism tool.got tonkaed wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:Just to note, I really don't care if he excepts the prize, it just bothers me that he was nominated soley for saying he was going to do stuff. Previous Presidents, if I am not mistaken, had actually accomplished something before being nominated and actually being awarded the Peace Prize. That is what bothers me.got tonkaed wrote:Thats a wonderful example of very poor political manuvering to appeal to some constiutents on an issue that really has no weight.
Only under an overly literal interpretation would such an issue have any merit at all. I would imagine the founding fathers would have little complaint about someone winning a price for peace. I have a feeling they were a little more concerned about someone becoming the king of somewhere else.
Just a chance for a few people to grandstand and waste some breath during a time where there are plenty of worthwhile things on the table to discuss.
I am shocked that the Peace Prize is something that is capable of bothering anyone tbh.
The whole thing deserved either a 3 second reaction from the nation that should have approximately sounded like "meh" or a pbs special. In the land of false dilemmas, these seem to be the most appropriate responses.