Obama UN Security Council Chairman - is it Constitutional or Unconstitutional Keith Ljunghammar Wed December 23rd, 2009 Wow!! Obama must be super great. He is volunteering to be the United Nations Security Council Chairman for a month. Just think. The first President who will chair this position. Wow. Such energy and stamina. This is impressive. But. It is Unconstitutional. Article I, Section 9. 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. Obama, just so you do get this. The United Nations is considered to be a foreign state. Now, for the Emolument part. If you receive non-compensatory rewards you will also be receiving payment for services rendered. See again the Federalist Papers. The objective of the Presidents compensation remaining level and unchanged is to reduce the possibility of corruption or the taking of bribes. This is not particularly of others but of Congress as well. If a signing of a piece of legislation and an increase of compensation was included this would also be considered as a legal bribe. Restricting this during a term restricts the possibility of influence be the holders of the purse. Likewise, guaranteeing the compensation to remain on an even keel would increase the warranting of political suasion from Congress also. With a basketball player you want them running. If they are disagreeable and you want them to increase your solution is to fire, bench, or a restriction or fine. However, with the Office of President the players incentive or restriction is not to be adjusted. The people would be the prodding force in this case. A President would not run for President if not for the display of energy and the need for popularity and the need for changes. The need for change is the motivating factor and not the need for compensation. (See Alexander Hamiltons arguments in the Federalist Papers No. 70-78.) Did I also not get the first part where the Consent of the Congress must be mustered first. The United Nations Security Council Chairmanship is indeed an Office. So now lets go to Article II, Section 1. {In Case of Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inabilty to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.}* *Then see the twenty-fifth Amendment because the above was changed. The 25th Amendment basically says that for a time the Vice President would have to Act as the President. If the President is in another Office then the Vice President would have to act as the President. The Vice President would not be the President but merely would just Act as the President. Thus the Vice President would be the Commander In Chief. The Vice President would sign all incoming bills and do other tasks like receiving Ambassadors and other foreign heads of state. The restriction here has been chronicled previously by Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Papers #70. The President is to have fewer powers than the Queen/King of England. Whereas the King could call forth and establish wars the President could only direct the Military. The establishment of war is the strict duty of only the Senate. Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to the Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years: To provide and maintain a Navy: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the Untied States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline by Congress.... All of the rules above a King is required to do. In England a further restriction has been given to the King in that the funding of the Military is for a one years period of time. (This subject has also been addressed by the writings in the Federalist Papers.) A short restriction of time in funding restricts the power of waging war by a monarch. But a two year period of funding raises continuity of mustering troops. This is the one difference between the United States and England where the President is not as restricted as in England. But this is only as concerning the Military. The holder of the purse can have extreme restrictions when it comes to an energetic Monarch or Supreme Magistrate. See Article II, 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 Untied States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Department, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. continued: 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. continued: 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. So simply put. The President can appoint while the Senate is out of Session. Currently the Senate is in Session. Therefore President Obama cannot appoint himself during the time which the Senate is in Session. Nor can Mr. Obama appoint himself because the Constitution clearly states the President can appoint positions of other Inferior Offices which the Senate has previously deemed to be minor. This deeming of Appointment thus also cannot be an Appointment of himself. Neither has the Senate authorized nor does the President have the Power to Appoint himself to the Position or Office. If this were the case however, then the President would have greater powers than the King/Queen of England. He would have the power not only to be the Commander in Chief of the Military forces of the United States but also he would have the Power to be the Commander in Chief of the English Military. His vote as Chairman of the United Nations Security Council would give him the authority to put British forces under his direction. Neither would this be tolerated by the British Parliament but presumably it would not be tolerated by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The once Colonies commanding the Forces of the British Crown. It will not happen. Restrictions and Control of Authority were built into the Constitution on purpose. In some respects also a Governor of New York has more power than the President. The more directly involved with the People the greater the Power vested should be instilled. The higher the level of Power the higher the degree of secondary approval of Power is required. The Senate is the true restricting force here. Approval to act with Power and the restriction of Power is Candidly provided for in our Constitution. We did not break away from England just to have someone later usurp our restrictions and controls so we would be like a monarchy. But instead a monarchy is set up specifically to not act like a Republic and thus also a Republic cannot function properly as a Monarchy. Still today England does not want to be a Republic. (See House of Stuart Society mission statement.) Part of the House of Stuart (white rose) Mission Statement is to further the cause of returning the House of Stuart monarchy and pushing aside the House of Windsor (red rose) and in also maintaining a Monarchy and not to establish a Republican form of government. Mr. Obama I can applaud you for your energy. But Mr. Obama this is not and never will be a Monarchy. A Monarch does have the capability to act fast and very decisively. But a Republican form of government is very restrictive. However, Mr. Obama, I hope you do realize the Senate after the bombing of Hawaii did in fact act precisely and forthrightly by declaring war the next day. Unity of purpose and direction of zeal in times of emergencies is not a difficulty historically for the Senate. They have acted quickly and swiftly in the past and they will act promptly in the future. Put your trust in our Constitution. It has worked and it will continue to work. Sources: U.S. Constitution usconstitution.net/const.html Federalist Papers constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm
Posted on: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 02:57:17 +0000