The "One News Now" group is usually pretty pathetic, bu this time they may have hit the bottom of the barrel.
Obama's Nobel Prize - is it unconstitutional? Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/14/2009 7:35:00 AM
Seriously? That's what you got? Have you given up on the whole born-in-Kenya, commie-Hitler thing?
A constitutional scholar says President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution because he received the award without the consent of Congress.
And just who is this "Constitutional scholar"?
Matthew Spalding with The Heritage Foundation is concerned about the constitutionality of Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Prize.
Oh, the Heritage Foundation! What, you couldn't get someone from the John Birch Society? The LaRouchies not returning your calls?
(from Heritage website) Before joining Heritage in 1994, Spalding was a senior policy analyst at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy
So he's been collecting wingnut welfare his entire adult life?
Spalding is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College. He earned a doctorate in government from Claremont Graduate School, concentrating his studies on political philosophy and early American political thought.
Philosophy and political thought. Not Constitutional law? Oh, sure studying political philosophy, that's the same thing as being a Constitutional Scholar. My major was American History, so I'm going to say I'm an expert in English Literature. Same difference.
Spalding's work on The Heritage Guideto the Constitution, which brought together the contributions of 109 legal authorities, earned him Heritage's prestigious W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo Campbell Award in 2006. The award is given to the Heritage employee who makes "an outstanding contribution to the analysis and promotion of a free society." Wow! He won an award given out by the organization that includes himself! And he won this award for being one of 109 crackpots to contribute to some book that no one will ever read? How prestigious!
So on what basis does this great legal mind object to Barack Obama's Nobel Prize?
A clause in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office 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." That raises a question: Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument"?
Well, here's the short answer: No.
Here's a longer answer: No it is not. And what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, do you not have access to a dictionary?
Main Entry: emol·u·ment
Pronunciation: \i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt\
Function: noun 1: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation (Merriam-Webster)
e⋅mol⋅u⋅ment
–noun profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services (Dictionary.com)
emolument
noun
/ɪˈmɒl.jʊ.mənt//-ˈmɑːl-/n[C]UKformal
a payment in money or some other form that is made for work that has been done
See, if you'd taken a couple of minutes to look the word up, you'd see that an emolument is something which is earned as compensation for service. And since, as it has been pointed out numerous times, President Obama has basically done fucking nothing to have earned the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no way even a brilliant scholar such as yourself can twist the prize into an "emolument."
Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument" -- a gift arising from one's office which includes some sort of monetary award with it?
No. An emolument is not a gift. It is earned. And even you should know that.
Spalding, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, says since the award is technically the property of the United States, Obama has under 60 days to turn the award over to the appropriate authorities for proper disposal.
Do you have any legal argument for the award being the property of the United States and not the property of the person to whom it was given? No? Anything? You just gonna toss that out there as if it were established fact?
"The Commission, the group that gives out the Nobel Prize, is actually appointed by the Parliament of Norway, which is [to] say that it's connected with a foreign state. This makes it very interesting," the Heritage scholar notes.
No. No it doesn't. Not interesting at all.
"In 1993, President Clinton's own Office of Legal Counsel said that it didn't have to be a foreign state acting in a formal way, but could be, rather, indirect.
Of course, they also told him that a blowjob was not an impeachable offense, so. . .
[This] seems to be a perfect example of what the Nobel Prize is -- and the Founders put this clause in the Constitution precisely to make sure that foreign states didn't unwarrantedly influence American domestic politics."
Now he's in the pocket of the Norwegians? Won't that interfere with his loyalty to Allah? Those damn Norskies have been trying to influence our government for years, and they finally found a way! Look for the Treasury Department to switch our currency from the Dollar to the Herring any day now! Government offices will close for Thor Heyerdahl Day, and Bjork will write our new national anthem! (I know, she's Icelandic, I don't know any Norwegian musicians)
Spalding believes the Nobel Prize Commission intended to give the award to a president who had not yet accomplished anything, in hopes of encouraging him to do certain things in the future. Interestingly Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland has defended the choice of Obama, saying the prize should be an "instrument for peace rather than [a] stamp of approval."
While tenting his fingers like Mr. Burns and laughing like Vincent Price, no doubt!
One News Now, you've outdone yourself this time! This is beyond pathetic!
