Here's a free graphic, spread it far and wide if you're so inclined:
Posted on 10/27/2009 7:38:09 PM PDT by devane617
While many people were wondering what President Barack Obama did to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite began researching another question: Can he even accept the award?
Yes, she concluded, but only if he asks her for permission. Well, her and the rest the lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
So on Tuesday the Brooksville Republican sent a letter to Obama requesting that he fulfill a "Constitutional obligation to obtain Congress' consent."
The letter, co-signed by Republican Reps. Cliff Stearns of Ocala and Ron Paul of Texas, sets off debate about an obscure provision of the U.S. Constitution that they say restricts a president from accepting a gift from a foreign entity.
"Let's say you had a nonprofit in the Mideast that gave him a large sum of money, would we want that?" Stearns said. "The president should be careful about accepting gifts while in office."
But two legal experts on Tuesday deemed the argument a "stretch" and a Democratic colleague from Florida suggested the trio had come "unglued."
"They've obviously lost control of their faculties, lost their mind and are so consumed by despair they are in the minority (party) that there is no depth they will sink to," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston.
Brown-Waite insists she simply wants to follow correct procedure. "We need to abide by the Constitution," she said.
The letter reads: "Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, clearly states: '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.' "
"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."
Obama, who was himself taken aback by the news that he won the prize, was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Nobel committee said. Obama said he would donate the $1.4 million prize to charity.
Brown-Waite said she got the idea from aide, who read something on a blog right after the announcement. She said Obama could benefit even if he donates the money to charity, suggesting he could get a $500,000 tax write-off.
Her letter cites the Nobel Peace Prize given to another sitting president, Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, and suggests he "rightfully" complied in asking Congress for the ability to dispense the prize money to charity.
But news articles from the time say nothing about him relying on the clause she references. Roosevelt initially wanted to set aside the $37,127 for an "Industrial Peace Committee" and Congress created a commission to receive the money, according to a story in the New York Times.
Nothing ever came of it so years later, Roosevelt asked that Congress direct the money toward war relief.
Equally muddy is the Constitutional wording itself, of which there was no obvious interpretation Tuesday on how it would apply to Obama.
Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School, said a quick review suggested there are several reasons to reject Brown-Waite's argument.
"First, the Nobel committee is appointed by the Norwegian parliament, but it appears to be a stretch to call the committee a 'foreign state,' " she said.
"Second there are several other 'persons holding any office' in the United States who have won the Nobel and who, as far as I am aware, did not receive the consent of Congress before accepting the prize."
Joe Little, a constitutional law expert at the University of Florida, agreed. "It's a real stretch."
Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
BWHHAHAHA!
Hey, this kind of comic material you usually have to pay cover charge for, the illegal 0bamunist regime has been pissing all over the Constitution since Day One, why would they worry about some obscure provision in that roll o’ toilet paper (as they see it) now?
But kudos to Representative Brown-Waite for the effort.
Her motion will be probably be rolled into a fine tube for use as an emergency tampon by Shrieker of the House Nazi Pelosi.
FGS! This is the least of our worries re the B.O........This woman is making all Republicans look petty and worse...
Oh I don’t think so, the ‘Rats have the market cornered on ‘petty & worse’, this is a fine guerilla effort in the House which I heartily support although it’s not going to amount to a hill o’ beans.
If it embarrasses TKU (The Kenyan Usurper), all the better.
TKU henceforth adopted.
Thanks,
Mc
“This woman is making all Republicans look petty and worse...”
I don’t know about that. A vote would make rat congress critters squirm big time. It’s an embarassing award and they know it. Either way, taking a position would hurt a lot of them.
They've got to be kidding...
She’s right.
But do you honestly think the Congress will say “no”?
Clever.
Nope. The Nobel Prize is not from a king, prince, or foreign state.The Nobel Committee is a private body.
Obama should go for it. It makes him look all the mmore ridiculous.
Okay, I still think this was a BS award, but I think even dullards like Nancy and Harry can hold their cauci together for a “aye” vote on this.
donate the 1.4 million to charity....
Planned Parenthood?
ACORN?
PETA?
Bunch of mosques?
Greenpeace? (has both “green” and “peace” in the name...)
The Green Cross? (econuts and communists at the same time!)
Even if this was a constitutional restriction, since when does the marxist messiah follow the constitution anyway?
While the JOKER is playing Golf and picking up a worthless prize, our soldiers are dying! IF the RNC had any WALNUTS they would scream this at the top of their lungs!! COWARDS!!
i don’t agree with her either, but the question is legitimate. for one thing, it says the president can’t accept any emoluments. it does not say that he can accept the money as long as he gives it to somebody else. further, there is no test to determine who might be worthy if he was able to take the money and give it away.
whoever gets it will receive one and a half million dollars courtesy of mr. barack hussein obama. it would be difficult for any person to avoid the influence of such an act. roosevelt gave it to congress for war relief. although i laud his gift, it’s reasonable to expect that it had an influence on some voters.
Yep, me and my brother in Iraq are wondering about that too, why haven’t we heard more squawking from Republicans about this? They surely must’ve learned something the almost 8 years they were on the receiving end of it.
And where the hell is Colin Powell, the media-annointed model politician for the Republican Party, on this dereliction of duty? Oh wait, he's out 'promoting bipartisanship', and making money from speaking engagements. He's too busy to be bothered with petty concerns over the safety of our troops.
He’ll give it to some one or some group that will hold it for him for a while, and then it will show up in one of his accounts somewhere.
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous in light of the danger this man is to our nation and our way of life.
But—what do I know????
Jack Ryan had to have a Congressional OK to be knighted.
Sheesh.
A large part of his campaign contributions came from 'overseas' Why change now? /s
“They’ve obviously lost control of their faculties, lost their mind and are so consumed by despair they are in the minority (party) that there is no depth they will sink to,” says the second ugliest woman in Congress, behind Rosa DeLauro.
And speaking of ‘no depth they will sink to,’ when those Congressthings served in the minority, were any committee door locks changed to keep them out of a committee meeting? Ever?
Yes. There are no “obscure” provisions of the US Constitution. None at all.
They are all right there on the written/printed page.
Now, some folks may have trouble understanding some of the terms, such “high crimes and misdemeanors” or “natural born citizen” or “emolument”, but that says more about the erudition of the commentator than it does about the document itself.
As a Federal employee is he allowed to accept gifts?
And I’ll take what Ginny Brown-Waite says over that self-hating Wasserman-Schultz any day of the week.
...and the state of what passes for "higher education"...
APPOINTED by the Norwegian PARLIAMENT. For those in Rio Linda, a parliament is a legislative body.
Nasty Pelosi does not menstruate. Her womb is filled with ashes and fail.
I am merely a mirror which reflects Life.
yours is the logical conclusion. whatever alleged non profit gets money will make him a board member the day after he leaves office. there will be a salary/benefit package commensurate with the so called gift.
this man has no business in the white house, or any other house besides the big house.
The Nobel Committee is none of these, no matter who appoints them.They have no vestige of sovereignty, which is what that section addresses.
Now Obama has committed several acts of treason. You can actually get him on that.
Not really, but that's why my Statue of Awesomeness proposal makes so much sense. It satisfies the constitution, gives his adoring fans something to look at, and gratifies his ego.
Everybody wins!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.