[On Obama's winning the Nobel Peace Prize]
I agree with Bobbi Sanchez
If I'm reading and understanding it correctly, it's against the Constitution for him to accept it. Not that he cares about the Constitution.
"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.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9"
He should have declined it until his Presidency is over and then accept it, like Roosevelt.
Not that I believe he deserves it.
38 comments
I don't think this should be in this category. That said, her logic is wrong. The Nobel Peace Prize could be construed as a present, but it was not granted by any king, prince or foreign state, but by a committee, nor is it a title of nobility.
Heidi Elizabeth Heglar is probably a stand-up comic. You've got to admit that was LOL funny.
Roosevelt's decision was personal not Constitutional. And, considering the travel time involved during his day, I'd say it was merited.
> from any king, prince, or foreign state.
The Norwegian Nobel Commitee, acting under the Norwegian Parrliament, chooses the winner. The money, however, was Alfred Nobel's, who was a private citizen who could do whatever the hell he wanted with his money.
@Werewolf : "Heidi Elizabeth Heglar is probably a stand-up comic. You've got to admit that was LOL funny."
Also, her initials are HEH.
"If I'm reading and understanding it correctly ..."
You're not. (Big surprise)
The Nobel Prize Committee is a private organization; it is neither a king, a prince, nor a foreign state.
BTW, T. Roosevelt was a sitting president when he accepted the Nobel prize, as was Woodrow Wilson.
Got any more asshattery you need corrected?
This is actually not a frivolous position, though I think it's incorrect.
A few idiots might be confused, thinking that "Nobel" and "Noble" are the same thing, but this poster doesn't seem to think so.
The argument is that the cash award that comes with the Nobel Prize is an "emolument" (payment). They also argue that the Nobel Committee, being composed in part of members of the Parliament in Norway, is sufficient to make it a gift from a foreign state.
Again, I don't agree with it, but the argument isn't as absurd as some make it out to be.
So let me gat this straight, President Obama has to get the consent of Congress, to attend the post-award private meal (not the Noble Prize Banquet, held on the day of the Award ceremony) , provided by the King of Sweden, consisting of venison, that said king has shot himself...?
Does not compute...
(In that case, what about the presents that George W Bush reportedly recieved over the years, from Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia a/k/a "Bandar Bush"...? )
Yes, well, the medallion is actually a magic amulet. When worn around the neck, Obama becomes (drum roll) The Price of Peace! He must now go two falls out of three with Zombie Jesus to defend the title.
You see what a slippery slope accepting an award can be? This is exactly the sort of thing the Founding Fathers were worried about!
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.
Maybe you should re-read what you just posted. The Nobel Peace Prize is not a sign of nobility. And it was given by a commitee, not a king, prince, or foreign state.
Does the US Constitution actually say this?
The Nobel prize can be considered a present, but heads of states gets present during most state visits. It's always been like this, even before the Constitution was written. Every president since Washington must have broken this rule.
Nobility=Land titles and municipal lordships. Canada doesn't allow this for those in high office either as it's a conflict of interests.
Obama got an award to which the only applicable title is 'recipreant of a Nobel Peace Prize'. Which is what he got, not a knighthood or royal appointment
Even the ones that can read and write can't comprehend
Again, I don't think anyone is actually thinks that the Nobel Prize is a title of nobility.
The argument is that it's a "present" or "emolument", the acceptance of which is also prohibited to federal officials.
In any case, this lady is still wrong (though not particularly fundie). We can still make fun of her without resorting to the "lulz u think Nobel and Noble are the same thing!" straw man.
The Nobel is not granted by a foreign state, but by an international committee.
But no, he doesn't deserve it yet. Give him another year or two. THEN he'll deserve it. They just gave it to him too early.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.