[CharlesWayneCT]

Ron Paul. Where in the constitution does it say a duty of the federal government is to vote resolutions of honor, much less resolutions of honor for non-citizens?

[martinidon]

I agree with him, doesn’t Congress have better things to do...

[taxtruth]

He does have a point.

[NonValueAdded]

Exactly.

[Hawthorn]

>> Where in the constitution does it say a duty of the federal government is to vote resolutions of honor <<

Not in the Constitution, I'm pretty sure.

But if one could examine James Madison's copy of Vattel (in the original French, of course), maybe one might find that Old Jimmy had underlined a passage saying something to the effect that such resolutions "shall be deemed meet and proper" -- whether or not the putative honoree should be a natural-born citizen.

Honi soit qui mal y pense!

[=8 mrrabbit 8=]

Fed needs a spotlight...DREAM needs to be killed on sight...the tax battle ain’t anywhere near over...yet 402 congresscritters have the time to get involved in petty Nobel potlitics...

Geesh...

=8-(

[editor-surveyor]

> “Where in the constitution does it say a duty of the federal government is to vote resolutions of honor, much less resolutions of honor for non-citizens?”

.
Well gosh!

If congress were to stop doing things that are not authorized in the constitution, they sure wouldn’t be doing much.
.

[Ted Grant]

Shouldn’t that concept justify an abstention, and not a ‘no’ vote?

[backwoods-engineer]

Ron Paul. Where in the constitution does it say a duty of the federal government is to vote resolutions of honor, much less resolutions of honor for non-citizens?

If that's his logic, I'd have to agree with it. At least he is trying to do what the Constitution provides.