Oh my: Is Obama’s Nobel unconstitutional?
posted at 5:07 pm on October 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
Answer: Nope — or rather, it doesn’t have to be. But just the thought of Orly Taitz reading this piece and hyperventilating makes it worth linking.
Actually, there’s an intriguing point here — well, two — but it’s not the one you think.
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: “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.”…
This is at least the second time that Obama has run afoul of the emolument clause. On June 3, 2009, the day before he gave his speech in Cairo on relations with the Muslim world, he accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, Saudi Arabia’s highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah. (President Bush was awarded the Order in January last year.)
Aside from whether a president shows questionable judgment in accepting any preferment from the House of Saud named for its anti-Semitic modern founder, there is another issue: The Collar is clearly a chivalric “order” of the Saudi monarchy conferring a rank in that system of titled royalty and nobility. It is not a mere decoration or campaign ribbon. There does not seem to be any record of congressional permission asked for, much less granted, for the president to accept this bauble. Washington, Madison and Hamilton would have clearly understood that the Abdul Aziz Order falls under the same ban they had in mind for any public officials coveting awards made under the honors system of the British monarchy.
So all he needs to do is ask Congress to rubber-stamp it and he can keep the prize. Which brings us to that intriguing point: Why hasn’t he? This is a golden political opportunity for Democrats to make the GOP squirm. If they bring the issue to the floor, Republicans will either have to validate the prize by approving it or take the purist view that it’s an attempt to meddle in U.S. foreign policy and vote to block it, in which case the DNC will have a rich new vein of “party of no” material. You’d think Reid and Pelosi would leap at the chance so that they could use any GOP nay votes as proof that it’s pointless trying to negotiate with them on ObamaCare if they won’t even vote for the Nobel, and therefore reconciliation is the only way. What am I missing here?
Update: A good point from the comments. What’s the downside to Democrats? This:
The house floor debate on the substance of Obama’s accomplishments to date. The GOP would lose the debate but have endless reels of YouTube footage for the coming election of Dem’s trying to prop up their empty suit.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
They don’t really care…Obama is just going to go get it…won’t even come up as an issue. The Republicans certainly won’t bring it up.
AUINSC on October 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
thanks for posting on this, AP. i read the earlier headlines piece and was going to look that clause up on my own.
homesickamerican on October 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
“Oooooh Babe, Here I am….Signed, sealed delivered…I’m yours.”- Barry to the International Community.
portlandon on October 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Just vote present in honor of the President.
WashJeff on October 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
The house floor debate on the substance of Obama’s accomplishments to date. The GOP would lose the debate but have endless reels of YouTube footage for the coming election of Dem’s trying to prop up their empty suit.
TexasDan on October 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I think the answer to this question is RON PAUL!!!!
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM
err…lose the vote, not the debate.
TexasDan on October 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM
What are you missing? You are assuming that these people actually bothered to read the Constitution. I doubt if it ever occurred to them that there might be a problem.
Terrye on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Most Americans don’t think Obama deserves this prize.
Let it be shown which party believes he does and which he doesn’t.
ZJPolitical on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
But, that clause doesn’t apply to The One. He’s above all that Constitutional palaver. When others wish to honor our Dear Leader, how can we object? Why would we let a little thing like Constitutional law get in the way?
Crap, I hope I wasn’t being racist in this post.
Crusader Rabbit on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
…they don’t believe in the Constitution
txhsmom on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Didn’t Theodore Roosevelt get in 1906 for brokering peace between the Russians and Japanese? Wasn’t he president at the time?
Terrye on October 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM
You’re implying that the Left has read or gives a damn about the Constitution. Silly AP.
Spc Steve on October 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I agree with you that it’s not unconstitutional AP – but I really don’t think the Dems get any yardage out of that whole “party of no” line. In fact – I think quite the opposite.
Hell I’d have no problem with voting “no” and simply justify it by saying that it’s an interference in our foriegn policy that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would never have approved of.
HondaV65 on October 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
You’re assuming that they’re as smart as you. Few are, AP. Few are.
Seriously, though. You’re talking about a bunch of people that think the Constitution is merely guidance.
blink on October 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
He has been seduced by the Nobel prize committee. They are attempting to affect future U. S. decisions. If he does accept the money belongs to the U. S. Gov.
rjoco1 on October 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Maybe the Dems know that the NPP is a joke and that they’d like to have the matter drop.
And they haven’t read the Constitution.
Juno77 on October 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
No. No sitting Prez has ever received the Nobel.
Crusader Rabbit on October 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
I really hope not.
I’d really hate not being able to say “Nobel Peace Prize Winner” before “Bombs Pakistan Again”.
Chuck Schick on October 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
The Precedent hasn’t becaue he doesn’t know jack about the Constitution (thanks, Harvard) and because he is intentionally ignoring the Constitution in every way he can. He would go out of his way to bypass Constitutional processes because everything he wants to do (and most of what he already has done, including taking the office) is un-Constitutional.
Allah, as I keep telling you, The Precedent’s intention is to demean and denigrate all of our traditions and laws. This is what he WANTS to do – as with making a joke out of the White House his mronic, and un-American, trip to Copenhagen.
BS. Only a coward would squirm at this vote. They should all be proud to have their votes recorded publicly.
This Nobel was nothing but an affirmative action joke, just like The Precedent, himself, and no one with any sense of decency would vote for him to go collect it – unless it was with a one-way ticket and he was disallowed from ever returning. Let him go to Indonesia, where his third world style of governing is more in line with their sensibilities.
progressoverpeace on October 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
How could you be sure? The Constitution doesn’t forbid it. It merely requires congressional approval.
AP’s idea is brilliant.
blink on October 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
To hell with the Nobel, Obama is bordering on being Unconstitutional.
Old Hippie Vet on October 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Does Obama have to pay tax on that?
faraway on October 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Yes, it’s unconstitutional, but what difference does it make? Who is going to enforce any action against the violation of the constitution?
Daggett on October 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
The Nobel committee already admitted that it had nothing to do with accomplishments of any sort (that’s what “too early” means). In fact, the Nobel morons were scared sh!tless that The PRecedent was such a buffoon that he’d make such an a$$ of himself that they wouldn’t even be able to give it to him next year, let alone ever. They jumped to give it to him before he did even more embarrassingly stupid stuff than he’s already done.
progressoverpeace on October 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Old Hippie Vet on October 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
UUUHHHMMMM yeah 2 prior have received the award please look up history!
The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson’s work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months — questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.
xler8bmw on October 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
His healthcare wet dream is.
jimmy2shoes on October 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
TR waited until he was out of office to accept the prize.
I’m all for Osama Obama doing the same. He can take the money back to Kenya with him and help his brother and all the other suckers over there who believed in him.
Of course if he’s still in office by, say, the end of this year, the monetary value of the prize (at least in dollars) will be nil.
MrScribbler on October 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Don’t look now, but here comes the PCH Prize Patrol.
The Ugly American on October 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Doesn’t that actually make it Constitutionally and politically advantageous for the Republicans to do just that? Demand that Congress review it, and vote on approving it? I can also think of no better public expression of the separation of powers, that would hit Obama’s Administration harder, than to say to the Executive Branch, “You can’t even get the booby prize if we don’t allow you.” ‘Course they’d be called racists, but so what? We’re called that every day anyway.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Silly wabbit, Libs don’t pay taxes….
HornetSting on October 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM
According to Chairman Maobama, the US Constitution is a flawed document anyway, so who cares what is or what is not, Constitutional?
As for the $1.4 million in Nobel money he’s getting, the name of the Dire Straits song says it best:
Money for Nothing
Dixie Chicks for free!
Sweet_Thang on October 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
This Nobel is bad press for Obama. He doesn’t deserve it – and 80 percent of the planet including most Norwegians agree.
This whole thing is a godsend to us – because people were already getting Obama Fatigue – and were tired of his ego.
If it’s one thing American’s don’t like – it’s someone getting something that they didn’t work to earn. Well here it is – Ogabe!
Just brings more flocking to our side!
And voting in Congress? I say “goferit!” … We need all the press and attention we can get on this sorrily deserved award!
HondaV65 on October 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Not exactly….he accepted the prize in office he didn’t accept the money until out of office in 1910
xler8bmw on October 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM
FIFY.
TXUS on October 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
When are we going to discuss the merits of the Obel Prize?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Took you long enough to notice this one. A Canadian blogger, Kathy Shaidle, had this up at her Five Feet of Fury blog the day after the announcement.
Jim708 on October 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Tru dat. Why pay taxes when you have friends like “TurboTax” Timmuh and Chuckie Rangel?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM
The money is not his, how could he have to pay tax on it? I don’t think you read the whole thing.
scalleywag on October 16, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Probably not unconstitutional, but costly. The prize is $1.4 million.
Cost of operating Air Force One: $57,000 an hour, so 15 hours round trip $855,000
Plus the cost of cargo planes, secret service teams before and during the visit, staffers, etc.
It will cost the US taxpayers at least $3 million for The One to get a personal award of $1.4 million.
PastorJon on October 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM
One thing about the Nobel Prize that I don’t believe has been pointed out in all this coverage is that Nobel’s will actually states the following-
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html
“be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.”
You see where I’m going with this? By the Nobel’s own standards Obama is ineligible- unless they argue that his simply campaigning for the Presidency is sufficient to have some effect on world peace.
Jay Mac on October 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Is Nobel’s Obama Unconstitutional?
fogw on October 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Sorry, Rabbit – but three sitting presidents have received the Nobel. Theodore Roosevelt won it in 1906, although he didn’t accept it until 1910. Woodrow Wilson won it in 1919, and was unable to travel to Norway to receive it, so he cabled his speech to the American Minister in Norway. And then, there’s The Won. And I’m simply positive that he’ll do the gracious thing and either defer it until he’s out of office, or send his acceptance speech via YouTube. Hahahahahaha.
uncivilized on October 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM
DEFINITELY UNCONSTITUIONAL!
xler8bmw on October 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM
But, but, Obama is a constitutional scholar.
Kafir on October 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I completely disagree. I don’t think there would be a debate.
The GOP can’t debate this. And why should they vote against it? Simply because it might influence his foreign policy? That’s too weak.
Overall, how can any member of congress credibly argue against allowing a fellow American from accepting some prize that some Norwegians want to give our President?
blink on October 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
You’re right, and do you notice what all three have in common?
PROGRESSIVES.
TXUS on October 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I agree that it’s unconstitutional unless congress provides consent.
blink on October 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Yep. I did notice that. And Wilson won it for his work in creating the “League of Nations” – and how’d that work out???
Not too good.
uncivilized on October 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Because he’s obviously above the Constitution, that’s why. He’s rubber-stamped by the Left, which is all he needs to feed and perpetuate his ego.
Truth and the Constitution are just formalities to be ignored as convenient.
Liam on October 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM
You know, there was a time when I might have cared about optics like this. Not anymore. Sure, this may not be the issue to fall on their swords about, but are the GOP willing to fall on their swords about ANYTHING????
Firefly_76 on October 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Roosevelt’s prize money was kept in a fund created by Congress – later released by Congress. I can’t get the Congressional record on the actual bills they passed for it, but obviously Congress was formally engaged in Roosevelt’s Nobel.
progressoverpeace on October 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Well, that’s why we now have that very effective and widely respected organization called…
The United Nations.
Thanks be to God.
TXUS on October 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM
You are correct, but he waited to accept the prize until he was no longer president because he was concerned about HOW IT WOULD LOOK for a sitting president to be accepting a Nobel Peace Prize.
labwriter on October 16, 2009 at 6:04 PM
It was also, headed by a Chief Justice of SC and others not just congress!
Here it the letter he wrote to the Nobel Committee
“The medal and diploma will be prized by me throughout my life, and by my children after my death. I have turned over the money to a committee, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce and Labor, in trust, to be used as a foundation for promoting the cause of industrial peace in this country. In our modern civilization it is as essential to secure a righteous peace based upon sympathy and fair dealing between the different classes of society as it is to secure such a peace among the nations of the earth; and therefore I have felt that the use I have made of the amount of the Nobel Prize was one peculiarly in accordance with the spirit of the gift.”
xler8bmw on October 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I do not think this will really go anywhere, but Obama may be wise to put in the request to Congress anyway. It is highly doubtful that you would get much, if any, opposition from the Republicans. As was already pointed out, any opposition would make for great footage for the Democrats for the next election cycle. Eugene Volokh looked at this issue last week too (linked through my post).
BermanPost on October 16, 2009 at 6:15 PM
This just sets the stage for the Black Caucus to propose permanent, open-ended consent to all such honors for the remainder of Obama’s term. Which they’d pass by voice-vote.
Chris_Balsz on October 16, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Well, ya know… they took the Constitution a bit more seriously back then… right up until about Wilson… when they started to really muck it up.
Funny that to make Alcohol illegal, they needed a Constituional Amendment (prohibition)… yet only needed a Law to make Pot and Hemp illegal…
Romeo13 on October 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM
If I were Obama, and I got wind of the news, that other judges were pretty much bullied into voting for Obama, and this was nothing more than a political manipulation, by a pretty much insignificant prize, from an insignificant country….I’d be handing it back in 2 seconds. So if he accepts, then fine….but we’ll always know it was a ruse from start to finish.
capejasmine on October 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Precedent says it’s not unconstitutional, but it certainly should be. The Constitution is clearly against receiving awards like nobility from foreign states, because it could influence the behavior of the president. The Nobel Peace Prize is in a gray area, but it certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution, especially since it seems to have been given precisely to influence the behavior of the president. We should really add an amendment clarifying that any gift that attempts to influence behavior — or appears to (McCain would love that!) — must be okayed by Congress.
tom on October 16, 2009 at 6:35 PM
already covered.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2009 at 6:45 PM
The constitution is suspended whenever a Democrat is president.
I wonder what happened to all the “strict constructionist” Democrats who had so many constitutional objections to Bush’s policies…
I’m sure they will reappear as soon as a Republican takes the oath of office again. Until that day, the constitution is a “living document.”
Chlorian Theoreticus on October 16, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Totally off topic, but I find your handle interesting, by chance, would the first four letters be your last name? It is mine, and not exactly what you would call common, just curious.
M-14 2go on October 16, 2009 at 7:23 PM
This is an honor and an emolument, and so it needs the consent of Congress. Period. It is time to stop ignoring that pesky little document that has created the largest and longest-lived Republic in world history. If military men have to go through the process, the same should be done for the Chief Executive. The Republicans should all vote for it, and the Saudi honor–they can get in their jibes in passing, and they will be all the more effective for doing that. But there needs to be a formal consent of Congress–because I believe our military must go through this process. Ask ADM Mullen.
As far as the money–shouldn’t be allowed. You don’t profit off of public service, especially while in office. The honor should be honor enough, even though the honor is a dishonor, for it is a large smiley face and gold star wrapped up with a “Miss Congeniality” ribbon.
Horatius on October 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Does the Nobel committee count as a king, prince, or foreign state? They are appointed by a parliment, but they only have the power to award this prize, and the appointing parliment has no input into that process.
If Obama were a filmaker, and while sitting as President, won top honors at the Cannes Film Festival, would that be unconstitutional? If he received an honorary degree from a foreign state-funded university, would that be unconstitutional?
I think not. Which makes this silly. Being a nobel winner does not put you in service to any individual or nation. It is not a title with any political consequence. He’s not being knighted or made Duke of Fjordville. He won a contest with a medal and cash prize.
Even sillier when considering that if he DID have to ask congress, you think this one would deny him?
Machete_Bug on October 16, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Actually not off topic if you read the thread…..and no the 1st 4 letters are not my last name. The handle is because I drive a BMW and like to excelerate LOL
xler8bmw on October 16, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Just another thought here this clause in the constitution also, prohibits hime from being chairman of the security council of the UN as well!
xler8bmw on October 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Gotcha ;)
M-14 2go on October 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Actualy? The Repubs should PROPOSE the Bill to make this Constitutional…
Point out that THEY still believe in the Constitution…
Romeo13 on October 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM
When it comes time to vote on this, the Republicans can simply vote present.
I R A Darth Aggie on October 16, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I have almost no problem with that.
I would have absolutely no problem with it if it were a rich new vein of “party of NO MEANS NO” material.
misslizzi on October 16, 2009 at 9:06 PM
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
at some point you have to call it as it is..
period…
its called BRIBERY and thats EXACTLY why the founding fathers put that nice clause in there.
veteranoutrage on October 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM
I
“PRESENT!”
Khun Joe on October 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Reading the constitution? That’s a Peace Prize! Sorry, still have that in my head from yesterday’s Crowder video.
Alfresco on October 16, 2009 at 10:01 PM
The purist view? How about the Nobel view? They pretty much admitted that was behind their reasoning.
One problem with this argument….the Nobel committee isn’t a King, Prince, or foreign State.
It’s a silly award, for a silly man, from a silly group of people. Let’s leave it at that and focus on the important things. He’s not the first sitting president to get this award, and he won’t be the last. It probably won’t even be HIS last, lol.
xblade on October 16, 2009 at 10:08 PM
There is a simple way around it. Obama can accept on behalf of the American people, but not take ownership. He delivers the medal and money to the government agency which stores all Presidential assets. That’s what all recent Presidents have done with official gifts, as they’re not gifts to the person but to the office. There is a large stock of such things, and Obama knows it because he got to pick through them to choose stuff for redecorating the White House.
Among the problems with doing that is that Obama would not get to keep his medal. A worse problem is that Obama would have to admit, or pretend, that he’s a mere government official and it’s not all about him.
HotWeaver on October 16, 2009 at 10:11 PM
By George, I think he’s got it.
HotWeaver on October 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
At the risk of bragging, I took a non-lawyer look at the situation after seeing it in the headlines. If Obama wants to keep the non-monetary portion of the Nobel, it’s actually easier than asking Congress – all he has to do is convince the National Archives and Records Administration that the award is for “outstanding or unusually meritorious performance”. For him to keep the money and dole it out to the likes of ACORN, he would need Congressional consent; outside of that, the money belongs to the Treasury Department.
Of course, if he wants to not legally be able to say that he, Barack Hussein Obama II, won the Nobel, and donate everything to the National Archives and the Treasury Department (respectively), he can do so without any action by either the National Archives or Congress. In that case, the law requires him to accept on behalf of the United States, with the Nobel belonging to same.
Then again, this is Teh Won we’re talking about.
steveegg on October 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR
IT WILL BRING UP THE DEBATE WHY THE CONSTITUTION DISALLOWS IS AND FOR A VERY GOOD REASON
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS REASON IS THE BRIBE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT TAKE
PERIOD. LET THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT IT.
IT WILL BE ANOTHER EXAMPLE ABOUT THEIR CORRUPT NATURE
AND HAVE THE REPS REJECT IT.
IT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE ITEMS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND WHY IT IS A GOOD THING HERE
mooseburger on October 17, 2009 at 3:03 AM
Conversely, why doesn’t the GOP put forward a resolution approving the prize. Then they could use that as a shield against charges that they aren’t bipartisan enough on things like healthcare and cap & tax?
Stephen Macklin on October 17, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Consent of Congress isn’t necessary because the Emolument Clause doesn’t apply.
If these guys had even bothered to do a quick Google search they would have known that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is completely independent of the Norwegian government:
Second, another quick Google would have told them that the tax question is a nonstarter:
Sheer hackery on their part.
skylark on October 18, 2009 at 4:07 PM