Conquer Club

As 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.

notyou2 wrote:LOL......don't the people of America have something better to do than dredge up crap???

notyou2 wrote:LOL......don't the people of America have something better to do than dredge up crap???

notyou2 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?

Night Strike wrote:This is epic............

As 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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/27/obama-accept-nobel-prize-congress-consent-claims-congresswoman

So will the exact wording of the Constitution be ignored again?

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:

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.

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:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

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.

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.

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.