Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Page 3 of 3 First 123

  1. Thanks for the footwork, Mullet! I was too lazy to look up the relevant law(s). Iron Lungz' fault!
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    Thanks for the footwork, Mullet! I was too lazy to look up the relevant law(s). Iron Lungz' fault!
    Luckily, my program is a synthesis of both Common and Civil Law, focusing on international legality, so I happened to have my so-called "dignitaries bible" with me which covers international diplomacy.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Luckily, my program is a synthesis of both Common and Civil Law, focusing on international legality, so I happened to have my so-called "dignitaries bible" with me which covers international diplomacy.
    Awesome! My instinct told me the award might not be classifiable as a gift from a lobbying-prone entity, thus making it difficult to argue for the existence of a potential conflict of interest. I did not see any illegality in Mr. Obama accepting the award. You provided the legal foundation on which my conjecture rested. Thanks!
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Just for clarity of the conversation, Art. 1, Sec.9 - the so-called, "Emolument Clause" - prohibits, primarily, the accepting of titles, emoluments, and "gifts" from any "king, prince, or foreign state". Or, more broadly, foreign entities which may be regarded as states and/or state apparatuses. As well, § 7342 (the FDGA) prohibits the tendering of "gifts" and/or "decorations" from the following sources:



    As such, it is a difficult argument to characterize the Nobel Prize Committee by this particular rubric. However, in the case one makes that argument, the definitions set out in (c)(1)(A)(B) render it possible to accept the Nobel Prize:



    Now, without superfluously defining what "gift" and "minimum value" denote in the FDGA, I feel confident in saying that the acceptance of the Nobel Prize does not fall beyond the parameters of either Article 9, or the FDGA.

    The issue of whether or not Obama is meritorious in this instance notwithstanding, it would certainly be legal to accept the award; and, as far as I know, the amendments to the FDGA in 1977, 1978, 1986, 2002, 2004 and 2006 do not alter the legality of his (potential) acceptance.

    Personally, and making my decision based upon even modern renditions of the Prize Committee's criterion, I do not think he deserves this award per se; however, speaking strictly from the standpoint of culpability, he is doing nothing "illegal" by accepting the gift.
    The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament making it an extension of foreign state.



    (A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
    (B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
    (C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such.

    So is the Nobel Committee an agent or representative of the Parliament that appointed it, or not?
    The Historic PES Legend

  5. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament making it an extension of foreign state.



    (A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
    (B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
    (C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such.

    So is the Nobel Committee an agent or representative of the Parliament that appointed it, or not?
    The parameters and/or body of selection itself is irrelevant in this instance, and the FDGA makes that clear. What is relevant, is that the selected body - in this case, the Nobel Prize Committee - acts as such while in the capacity of "the state" - i.e.,) that they are an extension of the state and/or a state apparatus which acts in the capacity of the state while rendering the gift and/or decoration. So, to use the specific examples here, while the Nobel Prize Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, it does not act "as such" while rendering the Nobel Prize(s) to the applicable individuals.

    One should be clear that the "Emolument Clause" and FDGA were/are implemented to prevent collusion, corruption and bribery of the U.S., Civil Service and all its members. Now, again, even if one argued that the Nobel Prize Committee was an extension of the state, (c)(1)(A)(B) still provide a very clear opportunity to accept this "decoration".
    •   
       


  6. No, we will not.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Okay, then we can agree your comment on Google was wrong.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    The committee is selected by the Norwegian parliament making it an extension of foreign state.



    (A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
    (B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
    (C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such.

    So is the Nobel Committee an agent or representative of the Parliament that appointed it, or not?
    Just to be clear, I certainly accorded consideration to the nexus of your argument - that is, whether or not the Nobel Prize Committee may be officially regarded as a state apparatus. As per my reading of the FDGA, as well as State Theory, it is clearly not; as well, and as I have said, I think it would be clearly offensive for Obama to refuse the Prize - particularly from the standpoint of foreign relations.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Iron Lungz View Post
    No, we will not.
    Pull up off your high ****in horse.. no one pissed in your cheerios this morning.
    The Historic PES Legend

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Just to be clear, I certainly accorded consideration to the nexus of your argument - that is, whether or not the Nobel Prize Committee may be officially regarded as a state apparatus. As per my reading of the FDGA, as well as State Theory, it is clearly not; as well, and as I have said, I think it would be clearly offensive for Obama to refuse the Prize - particularly from the standpoint of foreign relations.
    Like I said in my comment... this is being debated by constitutional lawyers and am looking forward to what the end consensus is. Who is being offended? I know accepting the award is offending just as many people here in America... so who is it we should be appeasing?
    The Historic PES Legend

  10. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Like I said in my comment... this is being debated by constitutional lawyers and am looking forward to what the end consensus is. Who is being offended? I know accepting the award is offending just as many people here in America... so who is it we should be appeasing?
    You do not feel the "international community" would be offended if Obama declined to accept the gift? The 'direction' of offense in these particular statutes it outward - that is, "offense" considered within the sphere of foreign relations.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    You do not feel the "international community" would be offended if Obama declined to accept the gift? The 'direction' of offense in these particular statutes it outward - that is, "offense" considered within the sphere of foreign relations.
    Not in the least.. he knows damn well he doesnt deserve it, and I am sure most of the international community knows as well.
    The Historic PES Legend

  12. My horse is no taller than the one that you rode in on... and I don't eat Cheerios.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Pull up off your high ****in horse.. no one pissed in your cheerios this morning.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Iron Lungz View Post
    My horse is no taller than the one that you rode in on... and I don't eat Cheerios.
    I beg to differ... my horse is an @ss!
    The Historic PES Legend

  14. Then there's nothing else to be said, Ass.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I beg to differ... my horse is an @ss!

  15. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Not in the least.. he knows damn well he doesnt deserve it, and I am sure most of the international community knows as well.
    Well, determining a priori what the international community does or does not know about this award, or does or does not think about its meritoriousness, is highly speculative at best. In my estimation, the denial of the Nobel Prize would be seen as an act of American arrogance - particularly, that is, by the so-called "Axis" that you are attempting to mediate with. I think not accepting the Nobel Prize would cause more harm than accepting it; and thus, I think its acceptance as within the FDGA is permitted.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Well, determining a priori what the international community does or does not know about this award, or does or does not think about its meritoriousness, is highly speculative at best. In my estimation, the denial of the Nobel Prize would be seen as an act of American arrogance - particularly, that is, by the so-called "Axis" that you are attempting to mediate with. I think not accepting the Nobel Prize would cause more harm than accepting it; and thus, I think its acceptance as within the FDGA is permitted.
    Then all America is doing is placating. I did not read in the FDGA that it is okay if other people will find you the bad guy if not doing so. Again, threatening Isreal that we will blow their planes out of the sky, and downplaying to the Holocaust denier is in no way shape or form modulating peace on the world stage. Mr. Nobel's words do not construe the INTENT to form peace.
    The Historic PES Legend

  17. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Then all America is doing is placating. I did not read in the FDGA that it is okay if other people will find you the bad guy if not doing so. Again, threatening Isreal that we will blow their planes out of the sky, and downplaying to the Holocaust denier is in no way shape or form modulating peace on the world stage. Mr. Nobel's words do not construe the INTENT to form peace.
    I am unsure how this placating and/or appeasing is relevant to the situation, so I will refer back to the statute itself:

    ...or when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States.
    Whether or not his denial and/or acceptance coheres to the Red Herring you have constructed here is, in my opinion, completely secondary to the specific legality of the situation. What the FDGA is stating, here, is that gifts and/or decorations are acceptable to tender in situations where it appears - i.e., according to what is generally accepted - that the refusal of the gift may embarrass, offend, and/or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States; and again, I think it no mystery that the denial of a prize would be "generally offensive" to a large contingency of nations/individuals. A note now about legal literature that will clarify this issue. When the word "or" is used, it is meant to signify that all the possible options of a particular clause are, in themselves, sufficient conditions for either the reward or punishment contained in this clause - that is, the possibility of either embarrassment, or offense, or adverse effects to foreign relations are, again, in themselves, enough to warrant the tendering of an otherwise unacceptable gift. In this particular instance, the gift is acceptable anyway - but this makes it particularly so. With all due respect, whether or not you or anybody else finds the acceptance of this award to be morally and/or tactically egregious serves no bearing on its legality. And as I have said, the legality, not the morality, is my concern.

    I completely recognize your position on its acceptance, but am merely trying to establish, from a legal standpoint, it is fine, so to say.

  18. This just in.. President Barack Obama wins Heisman trophy for watching a football game!!!!!!

    LOL.. I saw this somewhere and it cracked me up..

    *sidenote... I am a liberal but this was just too funny I had to post it up
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  19. Look at some of the other recent "winners" of this "award".......

  20. Quote Originally Posted by iron fists View Post
    Embarassing other nations? What about embarassing our nation? Obama even said himself he hasnt done anything to deserve it, but does that make it ok for him to accept it. That seems kinda contradicting to me. I think if he really felt he deserved it, then maybe he could have accepted but declined the award in a way that would not offend anyone..He could tell them he is honored, but by the proof he has done absolutely nothing to deserve the award other than making speeches and promises after promise, but he would like to actually complete a concrete work of evidence that he has been successful in his peace attempts and then be able to accept the award that he would have the proved he earned.
    And I would like to see the reactions of the top 10 nations that disagree and agree with his award and acceptance and why. But since I only have the internet, news media, and library/college university databases (that I use to form my own opinion and not be feed someone elses's) I am not at the privelage to have westpoints or governement access to the real truth so I will wait for those who do to maybe post them or provide links too, and also for the know it alls who dont use the internet or news media and whom mite not have gvt connections to provide their uninfluenced opinion(in wich has been formed by their prescence at all the official speeches, hearings, conferences, summits, and congress hearings anfd house meetings).

    As far as our nations rep, even if you argue that bush is the real reason other nations do not respect us( not saying they all dont), what has obama done that has improved it? I have only found more negative than positive things.(but my access to the real scoop is limited)

    Ohh and I know this is not the topic of this thread but......Do you feel that it is good policy for a president to impose the nuclear descision process that allows him to force congress to vote on a healthcare bill that has not been create or even been explained upon what it mite really include? Then once it has passed to then write the bill, and deny the 72 hour window for congress to read the real version and not the coverpage? And to not allow the finished bill to be viewed online by the citizens of america so that our representatives can hear what we the people think, so that they can vote in a manner that truly represents us, because shouldnt we have a say in what healthcare we have because those who vote on it, write it, and obama himself will different coverage reguardless.
    And if the anit-obama media, companies, and officials are wrong, distorting the truth and just trying to shutdown obama because they are rascits mobster nazis....then why would obama and his administration wage war against these nay-sayers instead using the facts to shut them down and unarguable prove them wrong by providing the truth? For instance, if the healthcare numbers of 829 billion and costing well over trillions in ten years are so wrong and untruthful, then why not provide the real numbers instead of waging war? ITs sometimes hard to believe obama when he lashes back at these people and certain topics but he can never provide concrete evidence, he jus keeps talking and bounces around punchline.
    In addition, alot of the news media have money and other rewards that stand with the fact they are telling the truth and if you can factually prove them wrong then you win it....But there has never been any winners???

    And has anyone else been aware that the new cap and trade energy bill will almost completely double electricity costs immedialty? for example before 0.004kwh to after 0.007kwh.
    And this is all well-and-dandy, but my concern was not some vague normative judgment about the acceptance; rather, I was concerned about its constitutionality and legality. Whether or not other nations and/or Obama should feel he deserves the award is normative and irrelevant.

  21. Obama was nominated for this award within 12 days of taking office. This award is a joke, look at some of the recent winners...... Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Yassir Arafat

  22. You are right: that was another normative judgment, which is why I am confused you bring it up. I think you are misconstruing my argument, here.

  23. My history professor said, "Whats next? Motortrend car of the year too?"
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
    By strategicmove in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 01:49 AM
  2. recalling the following Nobel Prizes
    By lutherblsstt in forum Politics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 10:42 AM
  3. SuperCissus Rx awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,582,316
    By Guest in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 06:13 AM
Log in
Log in