I don’t like to get involved in political arguments, but every now and again something comes along that’s hard for me to ignore.
I have no strong opinion for or against Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I know I don’t have any major problem with it. As one friend whose opinions I respect pointed out to me, all of America won this prize, and for some Americans to start foaming at the mouth because they’re on the other side of the aisle is petty and mean. But as the attacks from the right become more and more severe, I’m wishing more and more that everyone would just shut up and let it drop. But sheeplike polarized thinking breeds, of course, more sheeplike polarized thinking. Thus I was not terribly surprised to find this in the Washington Post, a sloppy and childish attempt to prove that Obama is “barred constitutionally from accepting” the prize. I’m not going to fight fire with partisan fire (indeed, I have no partisan arsenal to draw from); instead, I’m going to do my best to tear this thing apart.
I admit at the outset that my knowledge of law and politics is pretty weak; I’m working according to my own sense, which is what my blog is about. Let’s begin:
“Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates. . . .” Alright, this is probably just bad wording on the part of the authors, Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham. I’m sure they know what I’m about to point out. But just to set the record straight, Article I, Section 9 is comprised of eight clauses, the last of which is the emolument clause. Other clauses discuss habeas corpus, taxes, and commerce, among other things. Whatever.
Next they quote from the emolument clause. The full clause goes like this: “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.” But Rotunda and Pham leave out the nobility part before “And no person. . . .” Okay, everybody living in the year 2009 knows that the U.S. doesn’t bestow titles of nobility upon its citizens, and never has; so why mention it if it’s not relevant to the matter at hand, Obama’s win? Well, because it’s proximity to the rest of the clause, which is indeed a continuation of the same sentence, illuminates the clause as a whole: The framers of the Constitution seem to be concerned that the titles and noble nonsense of Britain and the rest of Europe not be carried over to the new republic they’re putting together. Obama has not had any title conferred upon him. Though accepting the prize may conflict with the emolument clause (that “may” will be elucidated further as I go on), it has nothing to do with hierarchical systems of nobility, and furthermore, it just doesn’t matter. Read on:
“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. . . .” Irrelevant. If the argument is that a sitting president cannot accept the prize, then Roosevelt’s and Wilson’s accomplishments are irrelevant. How can you get so off the topic so soon into the editorial? This whole paragraph is nothing but an aside, a dig at Obama’s lack of concrete achievement. Rotunda and Pham have shot themselves in their proverbial foot.
“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.” Well that’s fine. But as the Committee’s official press release explained, Obama was chosen first and foremost “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Sure, the Committee wants to encourage Obama to make good on his promises to the world. But whether or not you agree with his administration’s foreign policy, he is receiving the award for something he has already done. His “extraordinary efforts” have perhaps not yielded much so far, but the efforts have been and continue to be made. In fact, Alfred Nobel himself might, I reckon, hail Obama. Check out this blurb from his will, in which, after discussing the prizes to be given in his name for physics, chemistry, medicine and literature, he enjoins that a fifth prize be given “. . . to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The key phrase here is “the most or the best work”. Can Obama’s efforts be categorized as “work”? I suppose there are those who will answer no, but the answer is, in fact, yes. Look up “effort” in Webster’s, Rotunda’s and Pham’s dictionary of choice (I myself prefer the OED).
“The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state.” True enough. But three of the five have been on the committee since 2003 and earlier, before Obama was elected to the Senate, let alone the Presidency. This breaks the link between Barack Obama and the parliament of Norway, which could not have had Obama in mind when they elected these three members. And in any event, it seems to me the fact that the committee is elected by the Storting doesn’t make the committee an extension of the Norwegian government, any more than it makes it a “King, Prince or foreign State.” Maybe it ought to be seen this way through the cold, judging eyes of the law, but really, it’s a stretch.
“An opinion of the U.S. attorney general advised, in 1902, that ‘a simple remembrance,’ even ‘if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of “any present of any kind whatever.” ‘ President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit ‘its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns.’ This opinion went on to say that the emolument clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities.” Well, in the immortal words of the Dude, “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” Were these opinions ever made law? And — a photograph? Seriously? Besides, Clinton himself received awards from foreign governments: In 1998, the Czech Republic’s Order of the White Lion, First Class with Collar Chain (for more very detailed information about this award, click here); and in 2000, the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen. As for the the opinion of the attorney general in 1902, let’s not forget who was president at the time — Teddy Roosevelt, who, Rotunda and Pham note, won the Peace Prize three years later, while still in office. In short, this whole 1902 opinion about the emolument clause is not worthy of mention. I have no doubt that if I were to browse through the histories of every president since TR (and many before), I would find that each and every one received something from a foreign power or leader, and probably more than a photograph.
As for foreign governments acting through instrumentalities — can the Nobel Committee be called an instrument of the Storting? That implies that the Norwegian legislature controls it like a marionette. Maybe it does, maybe it does . . . But prove it.
“Giving that $1.4 million to a charity could give him a deduction that would reduce his income taxes by $500,000 — not a nominal amount.” This is another dig at Obama, a cynical and filthy comment that suggests he’s just in it for the tax break. Come on now. As if he somehow played a hand in the Committee’s decision so he could save a buck.
“Moreover, the money is not his to give away. It belongs to the United States: A federal statute provides that if the president accepts a ‘tangible or intangible present’ for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift ‘shall become the property of the United States.’ “ This is probably the biggest flaw in Rotunda’s and Pham’s argument. In the event the president DEFIES THE CONSTITUTION, this federal statute goes, the money’s not his. THEY ARE USING A FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH CONTRADICTS THEIR ARGUMENT TO ADVANCE THEIR ARGUMENT. It is by now abundantly clear that common sense requires us to realize that every letter of every law cannot and must not be followed in every case. It is also clear that Rotunda and Pham don’t like Obama, and that if a Republican incumbent president were receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, they wouldn’t be dishing out this bullshit. And this leads me to the last point I’m going to make before wrapping this up and trying to forget about it:
“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.)“ (Red coloring mine.) This needs no reply. I will respond only by repeating what Rotunda and Pham themselves just said, which damns their whole foolish argument:
President Bush holds the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit medal presented to him by Saudi King Abdullah, right, his host for a two-day stopover. (By Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- Associated Press)
That’s really all we need to see. Most of this post has been superfluous. This is contemptible, despicable, intellectually dishonest partisan prattle, and I only hope that these people are not fooling themselves, on top of trying to fool us.
Enough. I’m done.
