Obama to chair UNSC (unconstitutional btw...)

[Polk]

I still don't understand why the Ambassador is not doing this. I'd like to know BHO's reasoning. He seems to be micromanaging; this is what our Ambassador is for.

I wonder what Hillary thinks of this?

I would imagine it's because the President is going to have a lot more clout to get things done than the ambassador would.

 

[Polk]

Can you address the fact that it's contrary to the constitution?

It's not. Article I, Section 9 states "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. And the President is not doing any of that. Besides which, if it were unconstitutional for the President, if would also be unconstitutional for the US ambassador to the UN ans s/he is also a Person holding an Office of Profit or Trust. And thirdly, the issue wouldn't be taking the position at all, but taking it without consent of Congress.

Winner.

 

[Si modo]

I still don't understand why the Ambassador is not doing this. I'd like to know BHO's reasoning. He seems to be micromanaging; this is what our Ambassador is for.

I wonder what Hillary thinks of this?

I would imagine it's because the President is going to have a lot more clout to get things done than the ambassador would.

Really? He gets more voting and veto power in the UNSC, now? When did that UNSC resolution happen?

I am awating HRC's reaction to this. Should be interesting. She may not even publicly react, but his stepping on her toes is destructive toward cooperation between State and the WH. I know BHO hasn't been in Washington that long, but infringing on the territory of another is a big faux pas here.

Eh, the people were wiling to accept such a green learning curve.

 

[Polk]

I still don't understand why the Ambassador is not doing this. I'd like to know BHO's reasoning. He seems to be micromanaging; this is what our Ambassador is for.

I wonder what Hillary thinks of this?

I would imagine it's because the President is going to have a lot more clout to get things done than the ambassador would.

Really? He gets more voting and veto power in the UNSC, now? When did that UNSC resolution happen?

Did I ever claim that? No, you made it up.

I am awating HRC's reaction to this. Should be interesting. She may not even publicly react, but his stepping on her toes is destructive toward cooperation between State and the WH. I know BHO hasn't been in Washington that long, but infringing on the territory of another is a big faux pas here.

Eh, the people were wiling to accept such a green learning curve.

You do realize that Hillary knows she isn't president, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chairing the council is not unconstitutional, even if it is unwise politically. Let's move on.

 

[crowonapost]

the United Nations is not a king or prince or a foreign state.

I noticed that.

I also noticed that chairing a rotating chair on the security council is not a nobility chair or a sign of nobility either.

But don't want to distract the paranoia with little things, like facts.

Carry on people.

 

[Ringel05]

Sorry guys/gals I have to side with the left on this one, it's not unconstitutional. The extreme right wing obviously wishes to view it that way (unconstitutional) but that interpretation is nothing more than chasing upon rainbows.
Better luck next time.

 

[The T]

Just when you think it's ok to take a deep breath - thinking maybe the President will slow down on his power drive - Obama revs up again. And will ANYONE from the MSM or even FOX News, mention this CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION? Probably not....




In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council

In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council

Right Soup
September 14, 2009

Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so.

To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:


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.

Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:
Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.
UN officials also hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr. Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.
Here is what the UN Security Council does. Picture Obama as the Chair of this committee with this power.
Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

* to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;

* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;

* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

* to take military action against an aggressor;

* to recommend the admission of new Members;
* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in strategic areas;

* to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UNs highest body. Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi who is expected to be seated five seats to Obamas right will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on Americans.

He undoubtedly hopes that the horrid state of the nations economy, turmoil over health care, and a summer of racial scapegoating will pale by comparison. This role as UN Security Council chair will allow him to make decisions, influence legislation and resolutions, and set the agenda.


Right Soup will be closely following this very unsettling turn of events. Like I always say, pay attention to what Obama DOES (not what he says!)

____________________

Article II Sections 1 thru 4 explicitly spell out what the duties of the POTUS are, and how he shall be elected.

Specifically regarding Duties the following:

Article II Section 2

Section 2.


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

__________________________

I see what they have highlighted in their dispute with what Obama is doing. And I think they may have a case here, and I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED What they are worried of. And moreover? They should WAIT to see what he does since ANY Treaty has to have Advice/Consent from the U.S. Senate.

Article II US Constitution<LINK To the Presidents Duties

As to ARTICLE 1 Section 9 ? The article posted here neglected to post the ARTICLE and only said "Section 9". In any case ANYTHING that Obama may agree to still has to pass MUSTER of the Congress.

So? It is of my opinion to just watch what he does. He MAY NOT enter into ANY agreement with the UN or other body outside the view Of the Legislative Body (Or to the People), without their consent, and again? I think that fear is on display in this OP.

SEE what he does first, and then judge/ take action.

I gave Llinks to pertinent Articles within the Constitution. Read them is you have time, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Is what he is doing unprecidented? Sure it is? Can he do it? I see no reason why not. But again? WAIT and see what he does, and ANY agreement without the Consent of the Congress, would be a VIOLATION in my view.

~The T

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 states: "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."

The article you cited didn't even get the cite from the Constitution correct. Article 1 of the Constitution is addressing the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch of the Constitution.

There is no violation of the Constitution on this matter. This clause actually references the Senecure Clause of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2) Which, if you look up, deals with the Legislative Branch of government, not the Executive. Chairing a meeting is not a violation of the Constitution.

 

[The T]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 states: "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."

The article you cited didn't even get the cite from the Constitution correct. Article 1 of the Constitution is addressing the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch of the Constitution.

There is no violation of the Constitution on this matter. This clause actually references the Senecure Clause of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2) Which, if you look up, deals with the Legislative Branch of government, not the Executive. Chairing a meeting is not a violation of the Constitution.

Exactly, and what I was trying to get across by Citing Article II which statews what the POTUS duties are.
I think the fear is that he will sign onto something with out advice/consent of the Senate.

I think they got their wires crossed. You are correct regarding the Congress, in which Article 1 Addresses.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 states: "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."

The article you cited didn't even get the cite from the Constitution correct. Article 1 of the Constitution is addressing the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch of the Constitution.

There is no violation of the Constitution on this matter. This clause actually references the Senecure Clause of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2) Which, if you look up, deals with the Legislative Branch of government, not the Executive. Chairing a meeting is not a violation of the Constitution.

Exactly, and what I was trying to get across by Citing Article II which statews what the POTUS duties are.
I think the fear is that he will sign onto something with out advice/consent of the Senate.

I think they got their wires crossed. You are correct regarding the Congress, in which Article 1 Addresses.

I agree with you T. Nothing wrong with being cautious on this matter, and making people aware of what is going on. At the same time, it doesn't bode well for those who pervert the Constitution, just so they can make a claim the POTUS is doing such. In my opinion, we have enough of that already.

 

[The T]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 states: "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."

The article you cited didn't even get the cite from the Constitution correct. Article 1 of the Constitution is addressing the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch of the Constitution.

There is no violation of the Constitution on this matter. This clause actually references the Senecure Clause of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2) Which, if you look up, deals with the Legislative Branch of government, not the Executive. Chairing a meeting is not a violation of the Constitution.

Exactly, and what I was trying to get across by Citing Article II which statews what the POTUS duties are.
I think the fear is that he will sign onto something with out advice/consent of the Senate.

I think they got their wires crossed. You are correct regarding the Congress, in which Article 1 Addresses.

I agree with you T. Nothing wrong with being cautious on this matter, and making people aware of what is going on. At the same time, it doesn't bode well for those who pervert the Constitution, just so they can make a claim the POTUS is doing such. In my opinion, we have enough of that already.

Agreed. When I linked Article II juxtaposed with Article I? I was hoping people would go to the links posted and read it for themselves.

You are correct regarding the perversion of the Constitution, and siding on caution to see what Obama does in this 'Role'. He cannot agree to anything without consent from the Legislative Branch, period.

 

[Xenophon]

Don't see it as Unconstitutional, just amusing that captain confusion is going global.

 

[Si modo]

I would imagine it's because the President is going to have a lot more clout to get things done than the ambassador would.

Really? He gets more voting and veto power in the UNSC, now? When did that UNSC resolution happen?

Did I ever claim that? No, you made it up. ....

That's the only way I see him getting more clout than an ambassador would, which is exactly what you said. Why don't you communicate clearly what you mean, then?

....

I am awating HRC's reaction to this. Should be interesting. She may not even publicly react, but his stepping on her toes is destructive toward cooperation between State and the WH. I know BHO hasn't been in Washington that long, but infringing on the territory of another is a big faux pas here.

Eh, the people were wiling to accept such a green learning curve.

You do realize that Hillary knows she isn't president, right?

Pay attention to what I wrote.

 

[Catbert]

The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.

At this point it doesn't matter whether or not he's breaking Constitutional rules. What matters is that Obama has zero knowledge of nuclear issues. This is not the time for a crash course or on the job training. God help us. We need someone with years of experience in national safety to intelligently discuss this matter.

 

[Polk]

I think the fear is that he will sign onto something with out advice/consent of the Senate.

Depending on the nature of the agreement, the President can make agreements without Senate approval.

 

[Polk]

Really? He gets more voting and veto power in the UNSC, now? When did that UNSC resolution happen?

Did I ever claim that? No, you made it up. ....

That's the only way I see him getting more clout than an ambassador would, which is exactly what you said. Why don't you communicate clearly what you mean, then?

What I said was crystal clear. He'll have more clout than an ambassador would because the word of the President carries more weight than that of an ambassador. It's not that he has more votes, it's that he has a greater ability to persuade people to vote his way.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Obama to Us: UN To Disarm Americans (Re-post) >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com








Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for "food" to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.











and furthur down.










Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
















and now he'g going to char a UN committee? Oh Really?

Obama to Us: UN To Disarm Americans (Re-post) >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com








Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for "food" to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.











and furthur down.










Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
















and now he'g going to char a UN committee? Oh Really?

Obama to Us: UN To Disarm Americans (Re-post) >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com








Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for "food" to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.

The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.

The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons" but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.











and furthur down.










Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
















and now he'g going to char a UN committee? Oh Really?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/89013-backwards-in-time.html

 

[DavidS]

I still don't understand why the Ambassador is not doing this. I'd like to know BHO's reasoning. He seems to be micromanaging; this is what our Ambassador is for.

I wonder what Hillary thinks of this?

Who?

 

[concept]

Maybe he can organize all the money we are sending to the UN.