Another possible Nobel twist(s)...

Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and the
Peace Prize. While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS, I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it. However, it would seem
that if Knighthoods (UK or otherwise) and the Saudi "Order of Merit" (the
acceptance of which was pointed to by some as some sign of Bush's being "in
league" with them, yet, Obama also accepted - what happened to either, I don't
know) was an issue/problem, the Nobel Peace Prize, _now_ and as awarded, would
be illegal for Obama to accept. OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. While I somewhat
jokingly suggested that it be used to defray the cost of the trip, it would seem
there are some real legal issues involved with that part of the Prize.

???,
R

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:16:32 -0500, wrote:

Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and the
Peace Prize. While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS, I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it. However, it would seem
that if Knighthoods (UK or otherwise) and the Saudi "Order of Merit" (the
acceptance of which was pointed to by some as some sign of Bush's being "in
league" with them, yet, Obama also accepted - what happened to either, I don't
know) was an issue/problem, the Nobel Peace Prize, _now_ and as awarded, would
be illegal for Obama to accept. OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. While I somewhat
jokingly suggested that it be used to defray the cost of the trip, it would seem
there are some real legal issues involved with that part of the Prize.

???,
R

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160006

It bitches about "an attack," but doesn't provide much more than links to
stories.

R

wrote:
wrote:
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and the
Peace Prize. ...
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160006

It bitches about "an attack," but doesn't provide much more than links to
stories.

Here's the link to the Rotunda/Pham guest editorial in
The Washington Post;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101502277.html

Ron Rotunda is a well-known wingnut from the far right,
he was on the faculty here at Illinois for quite a few
years. His ex-wife still works as legal counsel for the
U of I. She's quite nice and not a wingnut at all, no
wonder they got divorced.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 16, 8:16*am, wrote:
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and the
Peace Prize. *While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS, I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it. *However, it would seem
that if Knighthoods (UK or otherwise) and the Saudi "Order of Merit" (the
acceptance of which was pointed to by some as some sign of Bush's being "in
league" with them, yet, Obama also accepted - what happened to either, I don't
know) was an issue/problem, the Nobel Peace Prize, _now_ and as awarded, would
be illegal for Obama to accept. *OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. *While I somewhat
jokingly suggested that it be used to defray the cost of the trip, it would seem
there are some real legal issues involved with that part of the Prize.

???,
R

Idiot.

g.

wrote in message
...
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and
the
Peace Prize. While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS,
I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it.

why?? Because no one would have questioned, in any way whatsoever, the
'legitimacy' of the award. Somehow, the black dude gets the award, and some
folks have questions?? Sheesh, this whole tack of yours is starting to
reek.....badly.
Tom

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:14:45 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and
the
Peace Prize. While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS,
I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it.

why??

First, let's separate the "award," the medal, and the money as they are
distinct, discreet things. While he would be free to accept the "award," the
actual medal and the money are another matter. Assuming the medal to have
"nominal value" (as an object itself), he's seemingly clear there. The money,
OTOH, is not of "nominal value," and therefore, his acceptance of it is, IMO,
iffy. Moreover, for example, there are the tax implications of it, should he
personally accept it and donate it.

Because no one would have questioned, in any way whatsoever, the
'legitimacy' of the award. Somehow, the black dude gets the award, and some
folks have questions?? Sheesh, this whole tack of yours is starting to
reek.....badly.

Um, why are you bringing race into this? IAC, even if race mattered in this
case, he is just as "white" as he is "black." Further, he didn't give himself
the thing, 5 Norwegians gave it to Obama the US President, not Obama the lawyer,
the husband, father, whatever, but not Obama, the person. I will step out on a
limb and guess that you do not claim that he won it for anything he did prior to
his election in Illinois (and really, anything prior to his election as
President, or at least his nomination - IOW, if Hillary had been the Dem
nominee, he would not have even been in contention, even if nominated). So
Obama the person, along with whatever personal physical attributes, really isn't
even relevant to the issue of the Peace Prize. But Obama winning as the
President of the US, not as the person, is also why it's a potentially sticky
legal situation. He didn't win as Obama the person or even for any act he did
as a person, he won for what Obama the POTUS has done or potentially will do
entirely in that role. As a contrast, IMO, had he been a peace activist, which
played even a substantial role in his getting elected President, and then won
the Prize, also as a result of what he did prior to election, there would not be
(a) potential issue(s).

TC,
R
Tom

On Oct 24, 5:22*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:14:45 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and
the
Peace Prize. *While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS,
I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it.

why??

First, let's separate the "award," the medal, and the money as they are
distinct, discreet things. *While he would be free to accept the "award," the
actual medal and the money are another matter. *Assuming the medal to have
"nominal value" (as an object itself), he's seemingly clear there. *The money,
OTOH, is not of "nominal value," and therefore, his acceptance of it is, IMO,
iffy. *Moreover, for example, there are the tax implications of it, should he
personally accept it and donate it. *

Because no one would have questioned, in any way whatsoever, the
'legitimacy' of the award. Somehow, the black dude gets the award, and some
folks have questions?? Sheesh, this whole tack of yours is starting to
reek.....badly.

Um, why are you bringing race into this? *IAC, even if race mattered in this
case, he is just as "white" as he is "black." *Further, he didn't give himself
the thing, 5 Norwegians gave it to Obama the US President, not Obama the lawyer,
the husband, father, whatever, but not Obama, the person. *I will step out on a
limb and guess that you do not claim that he won it for anything he did prior to
his election in Illinois (and really, anything prior to his election as
President, or at least his nomination - IOW, if Hillary had been the Dem
nominee, he would not have even been in contention, even if nominated). *So
Obama the person, along with whatever personal physical attributes, really isn't
even relevant to the issue of the Peace Prize. *But Obama winning as the
President of the US, not as the person, is also why it's a potentially sticky
legal situation. *He didn't win as Obama the person or even for any act he did
as a person, he won for what Obama the POTUS has done or potentially will do
entirely in that role. *As a contrast, IMO, had he been a peace activist, which
played even a substantial role in his getting elected President, and then won
the Prize, also as a result of what he did prior to election, there would not be
(a) potential issue(s).

TC,
R

Idiot.

g.

On Oct 16, 8:16*am, wrote:
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and the
Peace Prize. *While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS, I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it. *However, it would seem
that if Knighthoods (UK or otherwise) and the Saudi "Order of Merit" (the
acceptance of which was pointed to by some as some sign of Bush's being "in
league" with them, yet, Obama also accepted - what happened to either, I don't
know) was an issue/problem, the Nobel Peace Prize, _now_ and as awarded, would
be illegal for Obama to accept. *OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. *While I somewhat
jokingly suggested that it be used to defray the cost of the trip, it would seem
there are some real legal issues involved with that part of the Prize.

???,
R
"...... birth, that I don't think the Founding Fathers..."
The operativie words finally come out "I don't think". nor should
you try. Do something your good at, if you ever find anything.

BJ Conner wrote:
wrote:

... OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. ...

"...... birth, that I don't think the Founding Fathers..."
The operativie words finally come out "I don't think". nor should
you try. Do something your good at, if you ever find anything.

Yep, Rick has crossed the line from right-wing partisan to
right-wing whackjob. The moment you start talking about
"_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth"
you've left the sanity line way, *WAY* back in your rearview
mirror and you're speeding hell bent for leather into loony
land.

--
Ken Fortenberry

oh well then...dumb ass dem logic tells us he must
be a racist as well...ha, ha, ha!!!!!









On Oct 17, 9:23*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
BJ Conner wrote:
wrote:

... *OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. ...

"...... birth, that I don't think the Founding Fathers..."
The operativie words finally come out *"I don't think". *nor should
you try. *Do something your good at, if you ever find anything.

Yep, Rick has crossed the line from right-wing partisan to
right-wing whackjob. The moment you start talking about
"_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth"
you've left the sanity line way, *WAY* back in your rearview
mirror and you're speeding hell bent for leather into loony
land.

--
Ken Fortenberry