Obama's Nobel Prize Unconstitutional?

[Teddy Roosevelt]

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 establish 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.
ad_icon

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, the president Obama accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud, Saudi Arabia's highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah.

Aside from questionable judgment in accepting any preferment from the House of Saud named for its anti-Semitic modern founder, 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 Order of Abdul Aziz al-Saud 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, Congress ought to be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit.

As for the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud, 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Sparegeez]

With all the drama and shit we need to fix in this country people are worried about this bullshit. Ignant

[Low Key]

Who the fuck are Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham? Anyways, Obama got a peace prize because some people are just plain retarded since nominations for the peace prize happened a month after he was elected. We all know he doesn't deserve one (not yet, if ever).

[Sikotic™]

People are still crying about this? He got the Nobel Prize. He didn't deserve. Everyone agrees. Get over it.

[Shallow]

People are still crying about this? He got the Nobel Prize. He didn't deserve. Everyone agrees. Get over it.

Maybe they're afraid he'll think if he can do nothing for a year and get a Nobel Prize out of it, he'll do nothing for a 4 years and get a new prize named after him for people that do nothing. Come to think of it, all the progress I've made in my 20s so far deserves at least 3 or 4 Obama Awards.


Republicans are the ones that should be happy. Obama is being rewarded for continuing the policies of Bush. That should mean he'll keep continuing them.

[Primo]

People are still crying about this? He got the Nobel Prize. He didn't deserve. Everyone agrees. Get over it.

Maybe they're afraid he'll think if he can do nothing for a year and get a Nobel Prize out of it, he'll do nothing for a 4 years and get a new prize named after him for people that do nothing. Come to think of it, all the progress I've made in my 20s so far deserves at least 3 or 4 Obama Awards.


RepublicansNeo-Conservatives are the ones that should be happy. Obama is being rewarded for continuing the policies of Bush. That should mean he'll keep continuing them.

[Bananas]

Neocons are living in an existential hell with this black motherfucker running their precious white christian nation.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

With all the drama and shit we need to fix in this country people are worried about this bullshit. Ignant

This is an important issue.  Because when presidents take office the oath they give is to uphold the Constitution; yet over the last century Presidents care nothing for the constitution.

The constitution limits the powers of the Federal government, the constitution states that "any powers not prescribed to the government herein; shall be delegated to the states".   Which means the government was never given the power in the constitution to exact a War on Drugs, or the Patriot Act, or provide Health Care, Education, FCC, FDA, Welfare system, all the nonsense they do like threatening Major League Baseball if they don't strengthen their steroid policy, or even Michelle Obama establishing a task force on childhood obesity, and so much more.  

[Javier]

With all the drama and shit we need to fix in this country people are worried about this bullshit. Ignant

This is an important issue.  Because when presidents take office the oath they give is to uphold the Constitution; yet over the last century Presidents care nothing for the constitution.

The constitution limits the powers of the Federal government, the constitution states that "any powers not prescribed to the government herein; shall be delegated to the states".   Which means the government was never given the power in the constitution to exact a War on Drugs, or the Patriot Act, or provide Health Care, Education, FCC, FDA, Welfare system, all the nonsense they do like threatening Major League Baseball if they don't strengthen their steroid policy, or even Michelle Obama establishing a task force on childhood obesity, and so much more.  

Why complain about that?  The private sector has tried to make money off of diets, healthy living, etc but it still has very little effect on the overall status of the people especially the children.  Healthier kids will also mean healthier pockets. 

Plus there is a huge difference between policy and an award.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

With all the drama and shit we need to fix in this country people are worried about this bullshit. Ignant

or even Michelle Obama establishing a task force on childhood obesity, and so much more.  

Why complain about that?  The private sector has tried to make money off of diets, healthy living, etc but it still has very little effect on the overall status of the people especially the children.  Healthier kids will also mean healthier pockets. 

Plus there is a huge difference between policy and an award.

Because, it's not the governments job to be deciding who's overweight and who isn't, and what kids should and shouldn't eat.  This gay ass task force is going to sit around now and get paid by our tax dollars, to sit around and make research about what kids are eating and offer suggestions on how they can lose weight.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility and personal choice?  Isn't this supposed to be a free country where you are free to eat what you want and look how you want?  Do we really need to pay (through taxes) the likes of McCain, Bush, Michelle Obama, (politicians) etc. to tell us what we should be eating and how much exercise we should do?

[Javier]

With all the drama and shit we need to fix in this country people are worried about this bullshit. Ignant

or even Michelle Obama establishing a task force on childhood obesity, and so much more.  

Why complain about that?  The private sector has tried to make money off of diets, healthy living, etc but it still has very little effect on the overall status of the people especially the children.  Healthier kids will also mean healthier pockets. 

Plus there is a huge difference between policy and an award.

Because, it's not the governments job to be deciding who's overweight and who isn't, and what kids should and shouldn't eat.  This gay ass task force is going to sit around now and get paid by our tax dollars, to sit around and make research about what kids are eating and offer suggestions on how they can lose weight.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility and personal choice?  Isn't this supposed to be a free country where you are free to eat what you want and look how you want?  Do we really need to pay (through taxes) the likes of McCain, Bush, Michelle Obama, (politicians) etc. to tell us what we should be eating and how much exercise we should do?

It is the government's job to protect the people.  It's gotten to the point that the corporation farmer that deals with meat can't be fucked with while the small farmer is completely fucked and doesn't exist anymore because it can't compete.  Part of that protection is the lack of oversight and complete privatization of an industry.  It goes both ways my friend, people will be screwed if the government is too involved or not involved enough. 

Personal responsibility?  Damn news reporters/journalists can't even tell the entire story without being censored by their daddies.  So how is information going to be spread?  Word of mouth in this information age?  Puhhhlease.  Once word of mouth gets up there, it gets corrupted quick. 

Don't be so quick to judge a parent that works 2 jobs, and can't cook for their kid every damn day.  Real hard choice when you can't cook, a $1 hamburger or $1 for a few damn carrots.  Even worse when there is a shit load of fast food places in the poorest areas. 

" Isn't this supposed to be a free country where you are free to eat what you want and look how you want?"

The big problem with this idea is that of course, you can eat whatever the fuck you want...but the tax payer is the one that ends up paying when a 30 year old is in the ER because of a  heart attack due to a weight issue. 

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

It is the government's job to protect the people. 

Have you ever read the constitution?  The whole point of the constitution was to provide for an individual freedom to live one's life in a way that could not be threatened by the government nor the majority of society.  It was never the governments job to protect the people except from a foreign invader, and a task force on health obviously doesn't qualify for that.  What do you not understand about the constitution limiting the powers of government, and whatever was not directly mentioned in the Constitution was to be handled by the states!

And if you need people like Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Obama, McCain to protect you by telling you how much you need to exercise and what to eat then your beyond help anyway.

It's gotten to the point that the corporation farmer that deals with meat can't be fucked with while the small farmer is completely fucked and doesn't exist anymore because it can't compete.  Part of that protection is the lack of oversight and complete privatization of an industry. 

No, not quite.  The problem in the farming industry is that the government subsidizes it, and therefore sets up an un-natural situation between the farmer and his customers.  As long as people need food there is no reason the farmer would be out of a job.

It goes both ways my friend, people will be screwed if the government is too involved or not involved enough. 

Wrong again.  If a corporation screws you then you can stop doing business with them, if the government screws you and you try to stop doing business with them they will haul your ass off to prison.  The only people that got fucked by Enron were the people that did business with them; I didn't get fucked by Enron.  But I do get fucked by the government everytime they take my money in taxes and if I didn't pay that money they'd throw my ass in prison for tax evasion.

Personal responsibility?  Damn news reporters/journalists can't even tell the entire story without being censored by their daddies.  So how is information going to be spread?  Word of mouth in this information age?  Puhhhlease.  Once word of mouth gets up there, it gets corrupted quick. 

So your saying that people lack the proper information and therefore need the government to provide them with it?  LMAO!  Like when the government provided us with the vital information that Sadaam Hussien possessed nuclear weapons and was an imminent threat to our security?  Or like how the goverrnment provides us with the vital information that marijauna is bad and evil but alcohol is okay? 

Don't be so quick to judge a parent that works 2 jobs, and can't cook for their kid every damn day.  Real hard choice when you can't cook, a $1 hamburger or $1 for a few damn carrots.  Even worse when there is a shit load of fast food places in the poorest areas.

Maybe if the government didn't steal so much of our tax money or didn't regulate the shit out of small businesses people would have more money and wouldn't have to work 2 jobs.  And McDonalds is not the problem, they offer salads and other healthy items on their menu but they have to sell what the people want.  You can't be a business and not sell what your customers demand.
 

The big problem with this idea is that of course, you can eat whatever the fuck you want...but the tax payer is the one that ends up paying when a 30 year old is in the ER because of a  heart attack due to a weight issue. 

Well that's only because such unconstitional government programs as Medicaire and Medicaid have allowed for the government to rear it's ugly head into the field of health care, thus making it expensive and inneficient.  I don't believe the government/tax money should pay for anyone's health care.  The health care industry should be given to the free market, and then we'd be able to stop paying tax money for all these "Don't smoke, don't do drugs" adds that are on TV and never work anyway.

[virtuoso]

No big deal really especially when you consider that shitting on the constitution has become a ritual to the power brokers.

[Javier]

It is the government's job to protect the people. 

Have you ever read the constitution?  The whole point of the constitution was to provide for an individual freedom to live one's life in a way that could not be threatened by the government nor the majority of society.  It was never the governments job to protect the people except from a foreign invader, and a task force on health obviously doesn't qualify for that.  What do you not understand about the constitution limiting the powers of government, and whatever was not directly mentioned in the Constitution was to be handled by the states!

And if you need people like Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Obama, McCain to protect you by telling you how much you need to exercise and what to eat then your beyond help anyway.

It's gotten to the point that the corporation farmer that deals with meat can't be fucked with while the small farmer is completely fucked and doesn't exist anymore because it can't compete.  Part of that protection is the lack of oversight and complete privatization of an industry. 

No, not quite.  The problem in the farming industry is that the government subsidizes it, and therefore sets up an un-natural situation between the farmer and his customers.  As long as people need food there is no reason the farmer would be out of a job.

It goes both ways my friend, people will be screwed if the government is too involved or not involved enough. 

Wrong again.  If a corporation screws you then you can stop doing business with them, if the government screws you and you try to stop doing business with them they will haul your ass off to prison.  The only people that got fucked by Enron were the people that did business with them; I didn't get fucked by Enron.  But I do get fucked by the government everytime they take my money in taxes and if I didn't pay that money they'd throw my ass in prison for tax evasion.

Personal responsibility?  Damn news reporters/journalists can't even tell the entire story without being censored by their daddies.  So how is information going to be spread?  Word of mouth in this information age?  Puhhhlease.  Once word of mouth gets up there, it gets corrupted quick. 

So your saying that people lack the proper information and therefore need the government to provide them with it?  LMAO!  Like when the government provided us with the vital information that Sadaam Hussien possessed nuclear weapons and was an imminent threat to our security?  Or like how the goverrnment provides us with the vital information that marijauna is bad and evil but alcohol is okay? 

Don't be so quick to judge a parent that works 2 jobs, and can't cook for their kid every damn day.  Real hard choice when you can't cook, a $1 hamburger or $1 for a few damn carrots.  Even worse when there is a shit load of fast food places in the poorest areas.

Maybe if the government didn't steal so much of our tax money or didn't regulate the shit out of small businesses people would have more money and wouldn't have to work 2 jobs.  And McDonalds is not the problem, they offer salads and other healthy items on their menu but they have to sell what the people want.  You can't be a business and not sell what your customers demand.
 

The big problem with this idea is that of course, you can eat whatever the fuck you want...but the tax payer is the one that ends up paying when a 30 year old is in the ER because of a  heart attack due to a weight issue. 

Well that's only because such unconstitional government programs as Medicaire and Medicaid have allowed for the government to rear it's ugly head into the field of health care, thus making it expensive and inneficient.  I don't believe the government/tax money should pay for anyone's health care.  The health care industry should be given to the free market, and then we'd be able to stop paying tax money for all these "Don't smoke, don't do drugs" adds that are on TV and never work anyway.

1.  Read the Federalist Papers, and understand that the Constitution wasn't intended to be set it stone. 
2.  "As long as people need food..."  Yeah, and it's close to a fucking monopoly already.  The consumer can't do SHIT about it.  People try to sue, and they can't because they can't compete with the money corporations have.  YES FREEDOM!
3.  If a corporation legally fucks you with money, you can't do shit!  You need to be as rich as them to fight a good case. 
4.  I didn't say the government should provide the information, a journal/newsreporter is a private worker.  But really, unless it's PBS, any sort of reporting that damages the major media outlets it represents...it is thrown out the window.   
5.  Do you know how much a Salad costs at McDonalds compared to their Dollar Menu?  Kids at school are taught about Black History Month, I wouldn't mind have better lectures on weight control. 
6.  Asking for the free market to fix everything, is an idealistic pov.  You literally can't do that.  You could be completely right, but it just can't be done realistically.  It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, because this sort of policy won't fly. 


3. 

[Sikotic™]

Neocons are living in an existential hell with this black motherfucker running their precious white christian nation.

LOL I just spit out my water.