PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul says Constitution Bars Obama from Nobel Prize




Bruno
10-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Just saw it on the Fox crawler, citing Article 1, section 9, I believe.

Joining are Reps. Ginny Brown-Waite and Clifford Stearns saying he needs approval of Congress to accept the prize.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/27/obama-accept-nobel-prize-congress-consent-claims-congresswoman/

As critics continue to mull over whether President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite says the U.S. Constitution does not allow him to accept the award without the consent of Congress.

In a letter to Obama delivered on Monday, Brown-Waite, R-Fla., along with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, claim the president is obligated under the Constitution to obtain Congress' approval before he formally accepts the prize.

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, states: "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."

The five-member Nobel commission, which awarded Obama the prize earlier this month, is elected by the Norwegian Parliament -- the Storting. The award is therefore made by a group representing a foreign state, the writers argued.

"As the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, the Storting, the prize is clearly subject to the requirements set forth in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Obtaining permission from Congress should be straightforward," Brown-Waite wrote in the letter.

"I urge President Obama to affirm his devotion to our Constitution and seek the consent of Congress before accepting the award in Oslo, Norway, on December 10," she said.

Pericles
10-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Did Congress vote to allow T. Roosevelt to accept his?

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 06:22 PM
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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.

DirtMcGirt
10-27-2009, 06:25 PM
Who cares; Its just a piece of paper...

I'm kidding, I'm kidding

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 06:27 PM
Who cares; Its just a piece of paper...

well, he violated the Constitution....again. And this one was obvious. Even sheep could understand this.

ItsTime
10-27-2009, 06:28 PM
well, he violated the Constitution....again. And this one was obvious. Even sheep could understand this.

Sheep dont care, they are too busy trying to eat the free grass(money) Obama is giving them.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 06:30 PM
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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.

Those of us who dig history know that the "lost" 13th Amendment was actually properly ratified, but, I'm sure if you bring up the Amendment of "Titles of Nobility" that literally 99.9% of the population has no clue. It also isn't recognized in the Congress today, nor has been since at least the 1880's.

Edited for incorrectness. Silly me ;)

Anyways, most of if not all of Congress would be expelled. As it is, the original Article I Section 9 has no teeth.

DirtMcGirt
10-27-2009, 06:30 PM
.
If someone actually calls him out on it.

Kludge
10-27-2009, 06:31 PM
...from any King, Prince or foreign State.

? So who's the king, prince, or foreign State?

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 06:33 PM
Those of us who dig history know that the "lost" 13th Amendment was actually properly ratified, but, I'm sure if you bring up the Amendment of "Titles of Nobility" that literally 99.9% of the population has no clue. It also isn't recognized in the Congress today, nor has been since at least the 1880's.

That Amendment also has the penalty of death. Just about everyone in Congress including the President would be killed.

but we are talking about an amendment that hasn't been ratified.

Article 1 Section 9 of the law of the land

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 06:35 PM
? So who's the king, prince, or foreign State?

The Norwegian Nobel Institute

Kludge
10-27-2009, 06:40 PM
The Norwegian Nobel Institute

It's its own State?

Bruno
10-27-2009, 06:42 PM
Lol @ Fox comment

"The Congress will confirm O'shithead getting the prize, but it should go through proper channels. I hope he gives a very large portion of the prize money to animal welfare. One of the many promises he broke was to get a dog for his kids from a shelter."

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 06:43 PM
but we are talking about an amendment that hasn't been ratified.

Article 1 Section 9 of the law of the land

Yes (About Article 1 Section 9). However, I would argue that the Titles of Nobility was properly ratified. Honestly, if I were to become a sitting member in either the State House or State Senate I would educate my fellow members and ratify the Amendment only insofar as it is properly recognized by the SCOTUS....Boy do I hate the SCOTUS, it surely is not co-equal.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 06:50 PM
It's its own State?

well if you want to spit hairs, "state" is lower case
*EDIT Well i'm obviously not seeing straight. It's definitely and uppercase "S". lol I'd still argue that State applies. i'll argue tomorrow though. seeing double.

phill4paul
10-27-2009, 06:50 PM
This has frikken made my night. :D

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 07:08 PM
It's its own State?

Its a part of the norwegian parliament.

As the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, the Storting

ItsTime
10-27-2009, 07:23 PM
Im scared that this would backfire and we would have more young people saying "see the constitution is stupid we know better" .


Its a part of the norwegian parliament.

Thanks.

Bruno
10-27-2009, 07:28 PM
Im scared that this would backfire and we would have more young people saying "see the constitution is stupid we know better" .





To which a reply would be "Well, there is a process to change the Constitution if people believe that is true."

ItsTime
10-27-2009, 07:31 PM
To which a reply would be "Well, there is a process to change the Constitution if people believe that is true."

And that would fall on deaf ears because our political culture has been to ignore the constitution.

Chester Copperpot
10-27-2009, 07:31 PM
maybe this will be the beginning of precedent to bar any gifts these fuckers get from the bilderbergs

Bruno
10-27-2009, 07:38 PM
And that would fall on deaf ears because our political culture has been to ignore the constitution.

cynic :D

though I don't disagree. :(

catdd
10-27-2009, 07:48 PM
I don't think many in Congress would have the nerve to deny Obama the award.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2009, 07:53 PM
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

The Parliament does not decide or issue the award but a five member committee appointed by it does. Active members of the parliament are not allowed to be on it. The award is not funded by the Norwegian government but by the Nobel endowment. The committee issues the award on behalf of Nobel, not on behalf of the Norwegian government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee
If say the US Transportation Department put together a committee which was to issue an award to somebody for their work to promote automobiles and that award was paid for by the Ford Foundation, would you consider that a Ford Foundation award or a US Government award?
" And the Ford Foundation award for outstanding contributions in the field of automotive transportation goes to....."

Does the Nobel Peace Prize come directly from

any emperor, king, prince or foreign power,
We can rule out emperor, king or prince. The king is usually present at the ceremony but does not issue the prize or have anything else to do with it. Is the Nobel Committee a "Foreign Power"? Do they rule any country or land? Do they have sovereingty over peoples or areas?

I think this is just another silly side issue.

Whether he deserved it in the first place is another question. I am with those who believe he has done nothing to justify getting it and should have turned it down.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 08:11 PM
I don't think many in Congress would have the nerve to deny Obama the award.

Not to be spurious or anything, but.....

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

I think this is apt to bring up.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 08:17 PM
The Parliament does not decide or issue the award but a five member committee appointed by it does. Active members of the parliament are not allowed to be on it. The award is not funded by the Norwegian government but by the Nobel endowment. The committee issues the award on behalf of Nobel, not on behalf of the Norwegian government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee
If say the US Transportation Department put together a committee which was to issue an award to somebody for their work to promote automobiles and that award was paid for by the Ford Foundation, would you consider that a Ford Foundation award or a US Government award?
" And the Ford Foundation award for outstanding contributions in the field of automotive transportation goes to....."

Does the Nobel Peace Prize come directly from

We can rule out emperor, king or prince. The king is usually present at the ceremony but does not issue the prize or have anything else to do with it. Is the Nobel Committee a "Foreign Power"? Do they rule any country or land? Do they have sovereingty over peoples or areas?

I think this is just another silly side issue.

Whether he deserved it in the first place is another question. I am with those who believe he has done nothing to justify getting it and should have turned it down.

Any appendage of a foreign State is considered part of the foreign power.

BlackTerrel
10-27-2009, 08:29 PM
I'll be honest. This seems like a bit of a waste of time. There are a lot more serious issues going on - and this is very nit picky.

CzargwaR
10-27-2009, 08:35 PM
I'll be honest. This seems like a bit of a waste of time. There are a lot more serious issues going on - and this is very nit picky.

but when it comes to the constitution, it's all or nothing

JeNNiF00F00
10-27-2009, 08:38 PM
I'll be honest. This seems like a bit of a waste of time. There are a lot more serious issues going on - and this is very nit picky.

Its a slippery slope. When you start making exceptions to the rule, things start sliding until the extreme comes in. So, whats next? When do you draw the line?

Zippyjuan
10-27-2009, 08:39 PM
By the way, as I think was mentioned earlier, the Nobility Amendment was not ratified and is not in the Constitution to be violated in this case anyways even if you do think the Peace Prize is a title of nobility or award from a king, prince or foreign power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
The award is not unconstitutional. England could declare him a Lord and grant him priveleges and that would not be unconstitutional either.

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 08:41 PM
By the way, as I think was mentioned earlier, the Nobility Amendment was not ratified and is not in the Constitution to be violated in this case anyways even if you do think the Peace Prize is a title of nobility or award from a king, prince or foreign power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
The award is not unconstitutional. England could declare him a Lord and grant him priveleges and that would not be unconstitutional either.

16th amendment wasn't ratified either- didn't seem to matter since they print it with the lil' constitutions you buy from cato.

pcosmar
10-27-2009, 08:43 PM
I'll be honest. This seems like a bit of a waste of time. There are a lot more serious issues going on - and this is very nit picky.

Things are so screwed at this point that I welcome the picking of any and all nits.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 08:45 PM
By the way, as I think was mentioned earlier, the Nobility Amendment was not ratified and is not in the Constitution to be violated in this case anyways even if you do think the Peace Prize is a title of nobility or award from a king, prince or foreign power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
The award is not unconstitutional. England could declare him a Lord and grant him priveleges and that would not be unconstitutional either.

The Titles of Nobility was ratified properly, and even shows up as the Thirteenth Amendment in State Constitutions as late as the 1870s. Why you rely on a branch of Government (SCOTUS) to rule against itself is the epitome of the fox in the hen house. This is why the State continues to grow, always, and forever. It is built to eat liberty.

Secondly, Article 1 Section 9 specifically outlines Titles of Nobility. The Thirteenth Amendment merely expands this and puts teeth to the Section, which is sorely missing.

The award is unconstitutional, however, there's no punishment so it is "worthless".

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 08:46 PM
16th amendment wasn't ratified either- didn't seem to matter since they print it with the lil' constitutions you buy from cato.

Why do you think the properly ratified 13th Amendment is stripped unconstitutionally from the Constitution, and the unratified 16th Amendment is treated as Constitutional? Hmmm....Yep, and people here still support the State apparatus. :D

JK/SEA
10-27-2009, 08:46 PM
Quite simply, Obama has no honor. Period.

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 08:49 PM
Why do you think the properly ratified 13th Amendment is stripped unconstitutionally from the Constitution, and the unratified 16th Amendment is treated as Constitutional? Hmmm....Yep, and people here still support the State apparatus. :D

are you prepared for a thread jacking?
You don't want to issue this challenge with me- i just may have the patience to mop the floor with your over-simplified world view.

ClayTrainor
10-27-2009, 08:53 PM
are you prepared for a thread jacking?
You don't want to issue this challenge with me- i just may have the patience to mop the floor with your over-simplified world view.

Wow, ruffling your feathers like a scared bird, much? :)

rprprs
10-27-2009, 08:55 PM
...England could declare him a Lord and grant him priveleges and that would not be unconstitutional either.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm139/rprprs/shhh.png

Don't give them any ideas. ;)

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 08:56 PM
Wow, ruffling your feathers like a scared bird, much? :)

NO, I just stand on the truth. I've lived it. I know the last strips of free land in this country are there because of minarchist local governments. And the only reason they exist is because they are local, and they provide a common defense against tyranny.
It's protection force is comprised of its own community members, and is voluntary. No need to hire a private security force.
This is the spirit of the constitution that still survives. Our final check and balance.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 08:58 PM
are you prepared for a thread jacking?
You don't want to issue this challenge with me- i just may have the patience to mop the floor with your over-simplified world view.

Do tell. Feel free to PM. What is over-simplified, that I believe that the State exists to expand it's power, and does so in every turn? That you cannot rely on a branch of the State to ever rule against the State? That I believe in self-governance?

There is no such thing as Co-Equal branches. The SCOTUS is the Constitution and the Executive Branch controls the SCOTUS. How do you think FDR got the New Deal through?

Zippyjuan
10-27-2009, 08:59 PM
I still do not buy the claim that the Nobel Committee is a Foreign Power.

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 09:01 PM
Do tell. Feel free to PM. What is over-simplified, that I believe that the State exists to expand it's power, and does so in every turn? That you cannot rely on a branch of the State to ever rule against the State? That I believe in self-governance?

There is no such thing as Co-Equal branches. The SCOTUS is the Constitution and the Executive Branch controls the SCOTUS. How do you think FDR got the New Deal through?

let me break it down to you-
You keep saying "the State" as is every form of government is exactly the same.
But not every government grows- not every government is coercive.
You are a simpleton in thought. Your language reeks of over-simplified words as "the state".

I gets a bit old having the mises crew sell their bullshit over hear-
The only last bastion of freedom you will find are in places like my home town of Lone Pine, LA. And you bullshit philosophy of no government isn't going to keep you safe from the Federal Tyranny.
But a minarchist community, based on a small voluntary government will keep you safe.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 09:02 PM
NO, I just stand on the truth. I've lived it. I know the last strips of free land in this country are there because of minarchist local governments. And the only reason they exist is because they are local, and they provide a common defense against tyranny.
It's protection force is comprised of its own community members, and is voluntary. No need to hire a private security force.
This is the spirit of the constitution that still survives. Our final check and balance.

If you hadn't noticed, or read much of my posts I advocate militia and denounce private security firms. I differ from other An-Caps, in that I see militia being the force of common defense and not private contracted firms. Secondly, the bulwark against tyranny is the PEOPLE, not the local Government institutions. I'm all for having whatever government people consent to, but I have not consented to the Government, and if I so choose, I should be able to disassociate myself with the Government if I feel it is in my best interests. I propose an all voluntary society.

Lastly, you say Government (local) protects us from Tyranny, yet that same Government has no enforcement authority and derives it from the consent of the people (militia). Are you saying there needs to be local involuntary governance to support an all voluntary common defense? :rolleyes:

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 09:02 PM
I still do not buy the claim that the Nobel Committee is a Foreign Power.

Ok. They aren't a foreign power nor have any connection to any government nor use their prizes/awards to influence other nation's leaders.

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 09:04 PM
If you hadn't noticed, or read much of my posts I advocate militia and denounce private security firms. I differ from other An-Caps, in that I see militia being the force of common defense and not private contracted firms. Secondly, the bulwark against tyranny is the PEOPLE, not the local Government institutions. I'm all for having whatever government people consent to, but I have not consented to the Government, and if I so choose, I should be able to disassociate myself with the Government if I feel it is in my best interests. I propose an all voluntary society.

Lastly, you say Government (local) protects us from Tyranny, yet that same Government has no enforcement authority and derives it from the consent of the people (militia). Are you saying there needs to be local involuntary governance to support an all voluntary common defense? :rolleyes:

Governance locally can be voluntary. It could cover the 4 neighbors who want to get together to protect there shit- set some rules for honorable dealings with each other- and if they want- they can use it to build a new water well for all them to use.

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 09:06 PM
Government is tool. How it is used, will determine if its a tool for good or far bad.
The assuming that the "gun"(government force) is always bad is a lame argument.
That "force" can be used to protect rights, it can be used to take them.
You say the very fact that the "gun" may be used to take a right means it should be banned.
I say, no- because the bad guys are still going to have their "guns".
We need our tools to protect our rights from them.

jmdrake
10-27-2009, 09:10 PM
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: 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.

Title of "Nobelity"? ;)

I don't see how we win this one. If it comes up for a vote Obama automatically wins. He will, of course, claim this is just "partisan politics" and his surrogates will cry "racism". And most of these people have never read the constitution.

Bruno
10-27-2009, 09:10 PM
I still do not buy the claim that the Nobel Committee is a Foreign Power.

It will be interesting to his justification for his position on the issue. We are all fallable and he may incorrect legally or not, but I would expect Ron would have a good argument and perhaps a historical example to cite. I'm sure there will be a CNN interview very soon with Blitzer. :)


I'll be honest. This seems like a bit of a waste of time.

On my pet peeve list for weak arguments right behind "there's nothing we can do about it" and "its always been that way"

torchbearer
10-27-2009, 09:11 PM
Title of "Nobelity"? ;)

I don't see how we win this one. If it comes up for a vote Obama automatically wins. He will, of course, claim this is just "partisan politics" and his surrogates will cry "racism". And most of these people have never read the constitution.

true.

Dieseler
10-27-2009, 09:23 PM
I think the best way to influence this would be in taking the form of a sportscaster or a play by play guy calling a game.
Explain the situation and then have your technical analyst show the different strategies Obama could use to rectify the situation.
"OH, he's in a tight spot here Sam."
"Yeah Buck, He's got a couple of choices, Will he punt or go for it anyway?"
"Tough call Sam... I sure hope he does the right thing."
"Yeah Buck, this could be the defining play of the game for Obama."

I think you get what I'm saying. he (Obama) knows whats right (Constitutional Lawyer) and by covering it in this way you put the facts out there and remain objective thus limiting your exposure to the wrath of the race baiters.
I'm going to have to start using this strategy around here myself.
It's hard to pull off solo though, hehe.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 09:28 PM
Governance locally can be voluntary. It could cover the 4 neighbors who want to get together to protect there shit- set some rules for honorable dealings with each other- and if they want- they can use it to build a new water well for all them to use.

And I would be whole-heartidly in favor of that. That is not minarchism. The State and minarchism is a monopoly of force and law. I use the State definition as Rothbard defined the State. It is not over simplified just like the definition for voluntary is not simplified. It is an accurate description of the institution.

I'm not sure what makes you think that An-Caps are opposed to all Government? No, Government and the State are not one and the same. In the Rothbardian view (Which I pretty much agree to most of), Government is law. Law is agreed and consented to (And in the case of Natural Law, is present in humanity). The State differs in every way. We seek to dismantle the State and promote Government as in Self-Government (Voluntary contract, Natural Law, Private Property, etc.).

The fallacy in which you perpetuate is the need for Lone Point, LA to be involuntarily contracted with every State creed, law, and abridgement of Natural Law. The State being both the Federal Government and State Government. The people of Lone Point, LA should be able to lawfully, under Natural Law (And, in truth lawfully (Just like we used Natural Law to lawfully disassociate from the Crown) can), denounce and remove itself from all laws that are not consented to unto which do not violate another person. Taxation, Gun Laws, etc. If the people would stand up in a unified force the State would have to relinquish, because all power is derived from the individual.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 09:36 PM
let me break it down to you-
You keep saying "the State" as is every form of government is exactly the same.
But not every government grows- not every government is coercive.
You are a simpleton in thought. Your language reeks of over-simplified words as "the state".

I gets a bit old having the mises crew sell their bullshit over hear-
The only last bastion of freedom you will find are in places like my home town of Lone Pine, LA. And you bullshit philosophy of no government isn't going to keep you safe from the Federal Tyranny.
But a minarchist community, based on a small voluntary government will keep you safe.

I don't think we are on the same page with our definitions. You think Government and the State are one and the same, and as I pointed out that couldn't be farther from the truth.

This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

Read this from Rothbard:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Every State grows. If you can show me one historic example, where the State actually protected liberty, and did not violate liberty and that the State dissolved from outside force (Invasion), or from invasion from the inside, then I may concede, but there is not one example for which you seek. Do you honestly believe that Lone Point, LA needs the Federal Government to survive? That society would crumble and devolve into lawlessness without the Federal or State Government? In that absence during Katrina, many places in LA survived just fine without any subserviance to either. Militia protected property, and prevented crime. (Rural localities)

Our philosophy is NO STATE. The only thing that will keep me safe, or as safe as possible is Natural Law and the use of it. Self-Defense, Liberty, Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

PS: How come you support Ruwart and 'love' her, when she is an An-Cap and you vehemently disagree with the philosophy? Makes no sense...

SLSteven
10-27-2009, 10:44 PM
I am sure he will seek Congress' approval for the Nobel Prize right after he shows a copy of his birth certificate.

Bruno
10-27-2009, 11:11 PM
I am sure he will seek Congress' approval for the Nobel Prize right after he shows a copy of his birth certificate.

I'm surprised that it took 53 posts. :D

Zippyjuan
10-28-2009, 07:17 PM
Just curious as to if this issue would receive the same responce here if Ron Paul was the President and was given a Nobel Peace Prize. Would your reaction be the same? Would you say he should not get it? Would you insist that Congress aproves it? Or would you say it was well deserved? (and I make no claim that Obama deserved his).

Bruno
10-28-2009, 07:21 PM
Just curious as to if this issue would receive the same responce here if Ron Paul was the President and was given a Nobel Peace Prize. Would your reaction be the same? Would you say he should not get it? Would you insist that Congress aproves it? Or would you say it was well deserved? (and I make no claim that Obama deserved his).

The point would be moot because Ron would not accept it.

Andrew-Austin
10-28-2009, 07:23 PM
This is hysterically stupid. What the fuck difference does it make if Congress "confirms" it, they already announced they were awarding him. You can't undo an award that was given by someone else.

And what if Congress did, unlike in the past, take the time to approve the Nobel prize (and its a given they would approve). Would something mystically change about the award?



The point would be moot because Ron would not accept it.

What qualifies as "accepting" it? Saying "oh thanks I am honored", or forgetting to mail it back? An award like this is more symbolic/abstract than physical, saying "lulz I don't accept" still can't erase the fact that you were given an award. History books are not going to say "the nobel commission gave Obama the peace prize, but he never received it because Congress didn't approve".



And yes it is a good point, because people on this board wouldn't give a shit about this (detail in article 1 section 9) if Ron were awarded. But its okay to worship this decree in the Constitution since the award isn't being given to Paul.


Im scared that this would backfire and we would have more young people saying "see the constitution is stupid we know better" .

They don't have to just say the Constitution is stupid, they can say this detail in article one section nine is stupid.

Matthew Zak
10-28-2009, 08:53 PM
The point would be moot because Ron would not accept it.

And it would not be given to him.

foofighter20x
10-28-2009, 09:29 PM
Oct 15 WashPost article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html

SimpleName
10-29-2009, 03:32 AM
That is quite an awesome piece of the Constitution. I must say. Quality work by those fuzzy little founders. So smart! Someone in the media (preferably Faux News...for the fun of it) should ask him about it. At least Gibbs. Watching him squirm is always entertaining.

rp08orbust
10-29-2009, 03:35 AM
LOL, count me a prizer.