True? Has anybody seen or heard of this?

[rushmc 23]

Interesting if true
Don't get me wrong. To deny it would be stupid at best cause whether or not true, it would be seen as purely political at this juncture. But going forward, good idea or bad?

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

Quote

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.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Interesting if true
Don't get me wrong. To deny it would be stupid at best cause whether or not true, it would be seen as purely political at this juncture. But going forward, good idea or bad?

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

Quote

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.

And last I heard he was giving the prize to charity, so if the republicans in congress want to deny that they can go ahead and I am going to go get my popcorn.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

Who is the "them" referred to? Is it the congress? If it is I would say that the president does not hold an office under "them" and is thus not subject to that clause.

[downwardspiral 0]

"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.

Seems reasonable although I'm inclined to feel like she's just trying to get her name in the papers.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

I don't see the Nobel prize committee as being a king, prince or foreign state, so I dont see where it has a leg to stand on per Article I.

The prize award was joke, anyway.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[miked10270 0]

Forgive me for saying... But wasn't the Peace-Prize itself a joke?

It seemed that Obama got it for; "Not Being GW Bush"!

In that case, I'm "Not GW Bush" either, but in the interests of keeping Obama in the public eye, I'll just take the cheque, please.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[quade 4]

I think the key words here are:

Quote

. . . from any king, prince or foreign state.

I was unaware the Nobel Prize committee qualified as any of those.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

Who is the "them" referred to? Is it the congress? If it is I would say that the president does not hold an office under "them" and is thus not subject to that clause.

Under them, he or she who is in office

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

Who is the "them" referred to? Is it the congress? If it is I would say that the president does not hold an office under "them" and is thus not subject to that clause.

Under them, he or she who is in office

That makes no sense. "And no person who is holding any office of profit or trust under he or she who is in office, shall, without,...."
The "them" must be the Congress. The president is not under anyone. He is under the constitution only.

[headoverheels 333]

The FL rep is an idiot. Is she trying to reduce the number of Republicans in Congress even further?

Article 1 Section 9 applies to members of Congress, not to the President.

[Andy9o8 2]

To summarize:
You're all correct. She's an idiot, because:
- the Nobel Committee is not a foreign state or leader
- that clause in the Constitution applies to Congress, not the President
- she's handing her seat to her party's opposition, because the electorate is particularly sick of everyone's shit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

- she's handing her seat to her party's opposition, because the electorate is particularly sick of everyone's shit.

Nah, she's safe - it's Florida, so none of the Dems can figure out how the ballot works.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The FL rep is an idiot. Is she trying to reduce the number of Republicans in Congress even further?

Article 1 Section 9 applies to members of Congress, not to the President.

Thanks
This the kind of info I was looking for

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

It's true. But why would Congress not give permission?

There have been other cases like this in the past, mostly related to grants of noble titles to Americans by European monarchs.

For example, General Wesley Clark (former commander of NATO and a US military officer) was made a knight in 2000.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

The FL rep is an idiot. Is she trying to reduce the number of Republicans in Congress even further?

Article 1 Section 9 applies to members of Congress, not to the President.

Thanks
This the kind of info I was looking for

That's incorrect. It refers to any person holding office "under" Congress (which is the antecedent of the "them" in the phrase).

This section does apply to the President (and to virtually any elected official, and probably to almost any government employee, including military officers).

But again, why would Congress deny permission? This is a non-issue.


edit: full text of that section:

Quote

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United 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.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It's true. But why would Congress not give permission?

There have been other cases like this in the past, mostly related to grants of noble titles to Americans by European monarchs.

For example, General Wesley Clark (former commander of NATO and a US military officer) was made a knight in 2000.

So they (the house) would have to approve it should it meet the criteria?

And, I agree, denying it (especially at this point) would be a self inflicted wound. And what good would it do anyway?

It may make for more interesting things in the future however

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And last I heard he was giving the prize to charity, so if the republicans in congress want to deny that they can go ahead and I am going to go get my popcorn.

It's not his to give without Congressional consent.

The emoluments clause is storied and - pretty much entirely unintepreted. However, there are some things to be said about it.

(1) It does applyt to the President. While it is in Article I it does not limit its coverage. The clause empowers Congress to authorize such gifts or emoluments.

(2) The Nobel Prize constitutes a emolument. While the Nobel committee is private, there are certain ceremonial atrtributes and organizational issues that are state based. I think it was Clinton's admin that examinewd the issue and found that an acceptance of a title would be an emolument.

(3) It is compelling that the Prize is meant for future conduct.

What are other words we use for a personal payment to a politician to influence their future conduct as an official?
Yes, it is a prophylactic measure to prevent private profit from emoluments. Think about it. It just makes sense: "Hey, Congress, the Nobel committee wants to give me a prize. Is it cool with you?". Congress votes.

When I said it is not his to give it is because it isn't! Not until Congress okays it. Until then, it is government property and escheats.

Obama cannot give it away unless it is confirmed as his to give.

Congress - take up a vote and authorize him to accept it. Make this molehill a molehill and don't allow it to become some wacko partisan bickering - especially since it seems that the Congresswoman is right!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And last I heard he was giving the prize to charity, so if the republicans in congress want to deny that they can go ahead and I am going to go get my popcorn.

It's not his to give without Congressional consent.

The emoluments clause is storied and - pretty much entirely unintepreted. However, there are some things to be said about it.

(1) It does applyt to the President. While it is in Article I it does not limit its coverage. The clause empowers Congress to authorize such gifts or emoluments.

(2) The Nobel Prize constitutes a emolument. While the Nobel committee is private, there are certain ceremonial atrtributes and organizational issues that are state based. I think it was Clinton's admin that examinewd the issue and found that an acceptance of a title would be an emolument.

(3) It is compelling that the Prize is meant for future conduct.

What are other words we use for a personal payment to a politician to influence their future conduct as an official?
Yes, it is a prophylactic measure to prevent private profit from emoluments. Think about it. It just makes sense: "Hey, Congress, the Nobel committee wants to give me a prize. Is it cool with you?". Congress votes.

When I said it is not his to give it is because it isn't! Not until Congress okays it. Until then, it is government property and escheats.

Obama cannot give it away unless it is confirmed as his to give.

Congress - take up a vote and authorize him to accept it. Make this molehill a molehill and don't allow it to become some wacko partisan bickering - especially since it seems that the Congresswoman is right!

Thanks

Interesting stuff can be learned here......

as long as it is not kallend doing the teaching

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Kallend isn't always wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Kallend isn't always wrong.

Nope, he most defiantly is not. And I did not say that he was.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It does applyt to the President.

Really? Funny that it's in the Congress section. But I'm sure you're right; I didn't fact-check it.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Interesting if true
Don't get me wrong. To deny it would be stupid at best cause whether or not true, it would be seen as purely political at this juncture. But going forward, good idea or bad?

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

Quote

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.

It makes sense to the ignorant right wing morons who read Faux News, apparently.

For those of us in the real world, it is the usual Faux News crock of useless partisan bullshit. The ignorant pinheads that fall for Faux Spews are the Village Idiots. You don't modify society to please the Village Idiots. You ignore them and move on.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You don't modify society to please the Village Idiots. You ignore them and move on.

Which is why the 'public option' is failing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

It does applyt to the President.

Really? Funny that it's in the Congress section. But I'm sure you're right; I didn't fact-check it.

Sure. Just read the language about no person holding an office of public trust. It did not say "no member of Congress."

It looks to be a rule empowering Congress to approve it.

I also see plenty of things in weird places. One would think the Statute of Frauds would be a rule of evidence. But in Cali, it's section 1624 of the Civil Code. How bout that?

Just look at the words. Not where it is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

I think the key words here are:

Quote

. . . from any king, prince or foreign state.

I was unaware the Nobel Prize committee qualified as any of those.

They barely qualify as the Nobel committee right now.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.