Latest conservative attack on Obama Nobel: Prize is "unconstitutional"
Following the Nobel Committee's announcement that it would award the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, conservative media figures have launched numerous attacks on Obama and the award, asserting, for instance, that Obama won the prize "for trashing America," in Sean Hannity's words, or that the prize is an "affirmative action Nobel," as Pat Buchanan and RedState's Erick Erickson asserted. In the latest attempt to discredit Obama's Nobel Prize, conservatives have claimed that his acceptance of the award violates the emolument clause of the Constitution, despite the fact that previous sitting officials have accepted foreign awards in the past.
Conservatives argue emolument clause bars Obama from accepting prize
Rotunda, Pham in Wash. Post: Prize "belongs to the United States," should be used for "reducing the deficit." Chapman University Law professor Ronald Rotunda and Peter Pham, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), wrote in an October 16 Washington Post op-ed that Obama "has run afoul of the emolument clause" since "the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state," and the Constitution requires congressional consent for such a gift. Rotunda and Pham recommended that the prize money "be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit." They further asserted that Obama's acceptance of "the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit" from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia violated the Constitution and that the gift should be returned until the Saudis "recogniz[e] the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders." Rotunda previously advised Ken Starr during the Clinton administration, and Pham now works with FDD, a notably conservative think tank. FDD president Clifford May previously served as communications director for the Republican National Committee. In 2007, May appeared in the media several times to defend the Bush administration's conduct in the Iraq war without disclosing that FDD had received at least $1.2 million in State Department grants, or that he advised then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on democracy promotion.
Washington Examiner's Freire: Prize "is precisely the sort of lobbying the Framers were concerned about." In an October 9 post, J.P. Freire asked, "Can a sitting president receive a Nobel Peace Prize?" Citing both the emolument clause and a section of the U.S. code, Freire concluded that "to play it safe ... [Obama] should have Congress do a quick vote to allow him to accept the award." Freire also stated that "the law definitely appears to discourage this sort of thing" and added in an October 12 post that "[b]y coincidence, Federalist Paper No. 22 uses Sweden as an example of the ability of foreign powers to meddle in domestic affairs. (At various points, Sweden and Norway have shared power, with Sweden running foreign affairs while Norway ran domestic affairs.)"
Politico's Gerstein forwards Bush official's legal "concern[s]." In a Politico blog post, Josh Gerstein wrote that "[g]overnment ethics experts said [Obama] would be ill-advised to keep [the prize money] or even to turn it over to charity." But Gerstein cited only Richard Painter, an ethics counsel under President Bush. Gerstein quoted Painter's statement that "[t]urning the gift over to charity is something we usually would advise against in the Bush Administration," and that the emolument clause "is a concern. ... [S]eems to me if I were giving him counsel I'd say accept the prize without the money." [Politico, 10/9/09]
Sitting U.S. officials have accepted prize, other foreign awards in the past
UCLA's Eugene Volokh: Law professors noted Roosevelt, Wilson prizes weren't authorized by Congress. Volokh wrote, "Some law professors to whom I posed the question noted that when Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson got the Prizes while sitting Presidents, no Congressional Act was passed to authorize the acceptance of the awards. (I don't know what happened when Henry Kissinger received an award while he was still in the Nixon Administration.)" Volokh added that the question remains as to "whether the award is from a foreign State, in which case the money and the prize promptly become U.S. property, or whether they are not, in which case the President would presumably be allowed to keep them or donate them to charity." [The Volokh Conspiracy, 10/9/09]
Adam Blickstein: Schwarzkopf, Greenspan received honorary knighthoods while they were still serving. Blickstein wrote that "[a]ccording to Rotunda and Pham's argument," Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's acceptance of an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth while an active-duty service member "violated all kinds of constitutional constraints, Emolument Clause notwithstanding," and that Alan Greenspan also "should have fallen victim to the Emolument Clause as the authors of the Op-Ed envision it." [Democracy Arsenal, 10/15/09]
It destroys that persons ability to be Compassionate or Kind.
If forces you to Smear and Lie about your Adversary.
It makes the Hater (for example Glenn Beck) make a fool of himself when it's not even Necessary.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
But what shoudl I expect from the same people who have no idea what the "establishment clause" actually means, but never seem to STFU about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hate these traitorous, Un-American Scumbags
I don't know about anyone else but these acts, although hateful and ridiculous, have a great deal of outrageous comedy attached to them. The guys, the Tankers, are the type that make you P your pants laughing.
Too bad it is also sad that jagoffs like this get paid well to find hate.
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the Emolument Clause, : "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."
This is ridiculous.
Their argument that he didn't deserve it disappeared in a flurry of facts about who gets the Nobel Peace Prize - someone who inspires others to create/maintain/envision peace.
*brightest minds-does not constitute any high level of intelligence. Remember, it is about money for them.
Seriously. I don't usually like to run someone down knowing very little about them but here is Rotunda's website. See for yourself.
It doesn't take long to question his abilities.
Ronald D. Rotunda, The Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, joined the faculty in 2008. Before that, he was University Professor and Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. From 2002 to 2006, he was the George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law. Before that, he was the Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Professor of Law, at the University of Illinois. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was a member of Harvard Law Review. He joined the University of Illinois faculty in 1974 after clerking for Judge Walter R. Mansfield of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, practicing law in Washington, D.C., and serving as assistant majority counsel for the Watergate Committee. . . .
rotunda/spock
Here is a clue.
Don't you think this esteemed professor should be discredited due to his conflating of the Nobel prize committee with the Swedish legislature?
He may know constitutional law, but he seems to lack common sense. Spock would no doubt say: "Interesting".
BTW - has your wife made any recent fact-finding tours to document how much the rest of the world hates Obama?
"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."
I'm not saying this guy's correct, but nobody, including you, addresses the arguments he raises. Like children do, you ignore the substance of his article and resort to personal attacks.
See my post below. They are APPOINTED by the Storting but are not ACCOUNTABLE nor do they REPRESENT the Stoting.
Reading is fundamental.
See my quotation marks, idiot. That's what is stated in the article.
And I've read conflicting accounts of how one gets on the Nobel Commission.
"The Nobel Committee consists of five members and the secretary of the Nobel Assembly. The members are elected for a period of three years. Each year, ten associate members are elected for a term running from March until October. The Nobel Committee is the working body of the Nobel Assembly."
http://www.mednobel.ki.se/mednobel/committee.html
"The five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are elected by Norwegian lawmakers, so the panel reflects the political makeup of Parliament."
Reading is fundamental.
This comment below is not a quote from someone else, and is the part of your comment that we have objection to!!!
I'm not saying this guy's correct, but nobody, including you, addresses the arguments he raises.
Critical thinking is what's lacking here. There's no conflicting reports. There's no controversy. Just some whacko constitutional scholar with an agenda against Obama.
That's what I meant by reading is fundamental. You need to actually analyze what's written, not just take it at face value.
This committee is made up of former members of their legislature. FORMER.
They do not represent a foreign government. Just like the DLC doesn't represent our government. So a Nobel Peac Prize from them is not an award from a foreign state!!!!
The DLC, made up of elected officials, doesn't represent any legislative body or any government.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee doesn't represent any foreign government. His accusation is a lie! They represent the Nobel Prize organization.
And Foghorn certainly was not referring to what you claim.
Heed your own advice, reading is fundamental
If a group does not represent the foreign government, then a gift is okay. Neither the DLC nor the Nobel Peace Prize committee represents the nation they're from in any official capacity at all!
And Foghorn sure was referring to your comment. It was your fauly conclusion that you drew that caused his comment.
I never said I was ultimately persuaded by the WaPo article, but your conclusory statements and baseless analogies certainly were worthless in discrediting the writers' claims.
The five members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee aren't even active legislators anymore!
How you can possibly assume that they represent a foreign state is beyond comprehension.
There is no debate here - they are not a representative, nor controlled, by the state. They are independent individuals! Retired members of their legislatures!
Pretty easy.
How you can possibly assume that they represent a foreign state is beyond comprehension.
You're mind's awfully slow today. . .
The committee would cease to exist without the government. Its existence is totally dependent on the actions of the state. How you can automatically assume that an elected body is not beholden to the people who elect it defies common sense.
Do a little research next time before you make a fool of yourself. Organizations that don't represent a foreign government can give gifts to US Federal Govt officials. It's allowed. The courts have already determined this. It is irrelavant that if the government of Norway didn't exist, the committee wouldn't exist. That doesn't matter at all!
You are both crazy and ignorant.
Whether or not the committee is representative of the legislative body which elects its members is ultimately a legal conclusion, one which you are so clearly unqualified to make. As I repeatedly stated, I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of the legal scholars who wrote the article, and indeed am skeptical of them, but I'd much rather read a rebuttal from someone who uses legal reasoning to debunk their contentions, or who coherently explains why they think the professors are wrong.
Like a second-grader, you childishly insist that they're wrong because you say so. Then you persist on an analogy that is so misplaced and dumb that it undermines anything you say on this issue. Again, you do not address the arguments presented in the article. You simply state that the writers are wrong because DellDolly, the pretentious twit, says so, and back up your scholarly claim with an analogy that is wholly inapplicable.
Your brain, for lack of a better term, apparently is not built for anything but circular logic.
The DLC does not represent the US Govt. The Nobel Peace Prize committee doesn't represent the Norwegian govt.
Your brain is the one that has been shown to be insufficient on multiple occasions.
Your entire argument hinges on whether the committee, which is elected by the legislative body of a foreign government, represents that body which elects it.
In most cases, whether it be in private industry or in goverment, people who are elected to a particular position are considered, in fact and by law, to represent those who elected them. For example, the board of directors of a company represents its shareholders who elect them.
In your infinite wisdom, you state that the elected committee in this case does not represent the body which elects it. Why? Because DellDolly, the self-absorbed twit, says so. See, what you're doing here is assuming the truth of something which must be established. Your "word," I'm sorry to inform you, is not sufficient. You seem to be stricken with delusions of grandeur .. .
Now as I stated, I'm not entirely persuaded by the professors' conclusions. I'm sure legal minds, other than these professors, have bent their brains around the issue and could offer a coherent rebuttal. But your naked conclusion that the foreign committee does not represent the body which it elects it is worthless.
And for the third time, your DLC analogy only undermines your argument, and reveals your stupidity. The legislative body of the U.S., in its capacity as such, does not elect members to the DLC as part of its duties. On the other hand, the parliament of Norway, in its capacity as the legislative body of that sovereign state, elects members to the committee . ..
Again, your argument is conclusory and you fail to address any of professors' contentions in the article.
Here's what the Nobel Prize website says:
The committee is formally independent even of the Storting, and since 1901 it has repeatedly emphasized its independence.
[. . .]
The year after, the Norwegian Storting formally decided to ban members of the Government from the Committee. A second change was made in 1977, when the Storting decided that its members should not participate in nonparliamentary committees appointed by the Storting itself.
[. . .]
Unlike the prize award ceremony in Stockholm, it is the Chairman of the Nobel Committee, and not the King, who presents the diploma and the medal.
This is meant to emphasise the independence of the Nobel Committee.
[url= http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/committee/index.html]Your text to link here...[/url]
That took me about ten seconds to find through the miracle of Google. Evidently Ronald and Peter couldn't even be bothered with that.
They decided on the outcome, to discredit Obama's Nobel Prize, then they sought a path through an obscure clause in the Constitution to justify their very weak case.
It's pathetic. And when I discovered his bizarre website it all made sense. He's loopy. Your admiration of him explains a lot, so your insults mean nothing to me.
What a waste of time and money.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your point. I thought you people hated academia?
Thorbjørn Jagland (chair, born 1950), former Member of Parliament and President of the Storting and former Prime Minister for the Labour Party, current Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Member and chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2009.
Kaci Kullmann Five (deputy chair, born 1951), former member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2003, deputy chair since 2009.
Sissel Rønbeck (born 1950), deputy director, Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren), former member of parliament and cabinet minister for the Labour Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 1994.
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (born 1941), former member of Parliament for the Progress Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2000.
Ågot Valle (born 1945), former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party. Member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee since 2009.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee used to have some minor connections to the Norwegian Legislature, but they cut those ties pretty effectively decades ago!!!! "Now, active parliamentarians cannot sit on the committee, unless they have explicitly stated their intent to step down shortly."
Obama waves the Nobel Prize and says, "gold doesn't tarnish!"
Go, Obama! Go!
People can criticize Obama's Nobel Prize as much as they want, but the honor is still his. In other words, they can try to tarnish the prize as much as they want, but it won't tarnish.
If anything, the good thing the writers of the Constitution did was (and by chance, not by intention) make the Constitution simple, basic and somewhat vague in certain areas. This document was perfect for 18th century America, but perhaps it is time to start interpreting it to the 21st century.
I also never said I did not like the Constitution. I just don't believe that it is an infallible "divinely inspired" document. To say we need to read the minds of people dead for two centuries to discern its meaning is absurd. It is time we looked at it from the perspective of 21st century thought and problems.
Congratulations.
On the other hand the Executive Emolument Clause only applies to payments other than regular compensation received from the United States or from the individual states. There can be no Constitutional issue here.
While there is no Constitutional issue, prize money does become U.S. property under law, according to 5 U.S.C. 7342(c)(1)(B)(i), though it might qualify for a "cultural exchange" exception under subsection (k).
The full paragraph in the Constitution (Article II Section 1 Clause 7) is
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased [sic] nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
On the other hand the Executive Emolument Clause only applies to payments other than regular compensation received from the United States or from the individual states. There can be no Constitutional issue here.
I'm not following what you said. Here's what the WaPo article says is provided in the emolument clause:
"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."
http://ethics.od.nih.gov/Topics/foreign.htm
But the Nobel Peace Prize committee is not governed by the Norwegians.
by a committe of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian Parliamant), but without the committee being formally responsible to the Storting.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/committee/index.html
Thus, the award is not being given by a "King, Prince or foreign State" and therefore there is no constitutional issue.
HERE IS A PHOTO OF RONALD ROTUNDA FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE.
I rest my case.
"Why do people hate you so much?"
I trust that history will repeat.
Torture = Acceptable
Peace Prize = Unacceptable
First of all, how in the hell does $1 million help with the deficit? More interestingly, when do they start asking for money back from Halliburton/KBR and Blackwater/Xe? Like for instance the missing billions Halliburton collected?
Randy
Accepting it after his term would be more appropriate.
His very own Nobel Peace Prize. Imagine that! And what has our president done to deserve this lofty honor? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But first, let’s look a little closer at the curious timing of Obama’s award.
Did you know that the Nobel Committee’s own regulations require that all nominations be postmarked by Feb. 1? This means that—if the rules were followed—Barack Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize a mere 12 days after he was sworn into office.
Twelve days in office and he’s already being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize? Give me a break! Does anyone anywhere really believe that this is how it actually happened?
Let me suggest something that strikes me as incredibly obvious: The Nobel Committee broke its own rules to give Obama the award. Can’t you imagine a committee meeting with someone shouting the Norwegian equivalent of “Rules? Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.”
And of course it’s true. When it comes to honoring one of their own, and advancing the cause of their dubious socialist schemes, the elitists of the international left don’t need no stinkin’ rules. They can do whatever they want. That’s why they hate the very idea of being bound down by the chains of a constitution. These power-hungry sycophants always and everywhere love monopolies and dictatorships, so long as it’s one of their own who is in charge. That’s why they are so enraptured with the United Nations.
The plain and simple fact is that this year’s selection was rigged. This is far from the first time that the noble idea of a “peace prize” was prostituted to serve the ignoble ambitions of the left.
How else would you explain the selection two years ago of former Vice President Al Gore? Even if you bought into all the skewed science and deliberate deceptions in “An Inconvenient Truth,” can you really contend with a straight face that he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize?
Well, okay, I’ll grant you. He has done more to earn it than our Teleprompter-in-Chief. But that’s not saying much.