Nobel prize needs re-evaluation

[RickD]

As I recall the story Nobel made a fortune from his invention, which made nitroglycerin much safer to transport and handle.

As with all new ideas, some soon found ways to misuse it, though I don't recall in what ways other than the obvious ones. (Blowing safes, terrorism, etc.)

Nobel was so disturbed by the fact that his invention was hurting people that he wanted to counter the evil somehow and so created a fund to reward and encourage those working for peace.

This is off the top of my head, check the web for the whole story.

Also, if the writer had researched Nobel he wouldn't be perplexed. Way back in the beginning the invention came first, the prize came later.

[zachomega]

Didn't want to start a new thread...here is another article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Obama's Nobel Is Unconstitutional

By Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham
Friday, October 16, 2009

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the Emolument Clause, clearly stipulates: "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 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: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War and Wilson's work in establishing establish the League of Nations. 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. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

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. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an "emolument" ("gain from employment or position," according to Webster).

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. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.

Second, the president has indicated that he will give the prize money to charity, but that does not solve his legal problem. 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. 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 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, the president Obama accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud, Saudi Arabia's highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah.

Aside from questionable judgment in accepting any preferment from the House of Saud named for its anti-Semitic modern founder, the Collar is clearly a chivalric "order" of the Saudi monarchy conferring a rank in that system of titled royalty and nobility. It is not a mere decoration or campaign ribbon. There does not seem to be any record of congressional permission asked for, much less granted, for the president to accept this bauble. Washington, Madison, and Hamilton would have clearly understood that the Order of Abdul Aziz al-Saud falls under the same ban they had in mind for any public officials coveting awards made under the honors system of the British monarchy.

Taking President Obama at his word that the Nobel award is "an affirmation of American leadership," Congress should allow him to accept the award. The prize money, which legally belongs to the United States, Congress ought to be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit.

As for the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud, Congress should withhold approval -- and return the chain -- until the Saudis show their support for international peace by recognizing the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders. That would honor Alfred Nobel's desire to promote "fraternity between nations" and fulfill the intent of the framers that congressional approval would guard against attempts by foreign governments to meddle in American politics by dangling presents, titles, or any other emoluments in front of our public officials.

Ronald D. Rotunda is distinguished professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University Law School. J. Peter Pham is associate professor of justice studies and political science at James Madison University.

-Zach

[RickD]

Wow! Really scratching my head now.

Who would have thought it was so complex ...

Thanks for posting that Zach.

[Siobhra]

Since the Nobel Prize has proven worthless as an award of honor had has sunk to being nothing more than a Lottery Ticket I now offer an award of honor.

The PFOA Prize. The winner gets a Powerball Lottery Ticket. And will get a PFOA Metal (yet to be minted)

PFOA Peace Prize

PFOA Long Gun Prize

PFOA Hand Gun Prize

Etc.

Details of the requirements are being worked on.

Any idea's on requirements and other prizes?

[edstephan]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

Since the Nobel Prize has proven worthless as an award of honor had has sunk to being nothing more than a Lottery Ticket I now offer an award of honor.

The PFOA Prize. The winner gets a Powerball Lottery Ticket. And will get a PFOA Metal (yet to be minted)

PFOA Peace Prize "shooting a criminal"

PFOA Long Gun Prize "owners of long guns"

PFOA Hand Gun Prize "owners of handguns"

Etc.

Details of the requirements are being worked on.

Any idea's on requirements and other prizes?

Here is the politically correct version (fairness version)
Comments in red

An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

[Siobhra]

I was thinking for the PFOA Peace Prize we could elect Ted Nugent. Or Rush.

For the PFOA Long Gun Prize we could give it to the US Navy Sniper who got the Pirates while rescuing the Captain of the hijacked ship in the Middle East.

For the PFOA Short Gun Prize could go to Meleanie, for all she endured for us.

[Willtallica]

Obama, at least had an extreme affect in gun ownership which effected peace

[ErSwnn]

Originally Posted by PisnNapalm

Often used for mass murder? Statistics please....

I didn't bother reading any further than that first sentence. The author is an obvious idiot.

Please, go back and read the rest of the article, it's pretty good.

I agree with you that the author is definately off base with his take on dynamite but he has only reflected the common misconception of what dynamite is and how it is used. Not that that lets him off the hook for a lack of research but for the purposes of the article and the idea he is attempting to forward the concept of dynamite as a violent tool reaches the general public. Tie that in with the rest of his message and it makes sense to a greater number of people. That in turn causes more people to better see what the President is doing and how absurd his award really is. And that in turn is one more drop of water in the bucket of those of us opposed to this President's direction and tactics.

[buster2209]

"Nobel prize needs re-evaluation"

While we're at it, how about re-evaluating the Nobel Economic Prize? Keynesians are nothing more than collectivists.

It's all the same these days, Tony Bliar was appointed Middle East Peace Envoy. Where was he when Israel attacked Palenstine at the beginning of this year? That's right, in DC getting an award from Bush Jnr for bombing the shit out of Iraq.

I know I went (slightly) off topic and ranted somewhat, it's just that more and more of this shit is happening these days.

It makes a complete mockery out of what were once prestigious awards.

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Berks_Iraq_Vet

The award meant nothing after it was awarded to Arafat.
This is just a recertification of it's worthlessness.

And yet another apparent example:

Irena Sendler (Sendlerowa) lost to Al Gore in 2007.

Irena's bio (link).

Irena Sendler. An unfamiliar name to most people, but this remarkable woman defied the Nazis and saved 2,500 Jewish children by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto. As a health worker, she sneaked the children out between 1942 and 1943 to safe hiding places and found non-Jewish families to adopt them.

For many years Irena Sendler - white-haired, gentle and courageous - was living a modest existence in her Warsaw apartment. This unsung heroine passed away on Monday May 12th, 2008.

...

(source)

In 2007 considerable publicity accompanied Sendler's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. While failed nominations for the award have not been officially announced by the Nobel organization for 50 years, the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, reported in 2007 that Irena Sendler's nominator had made the nomination public. Regardless of its legitimacy, talk of the nomination focused a spotlight on Sendler and her wartime achievements. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.

(source)

Snopes >link<

http://www.irenasendler.org/

This woman never asked for anything for herself. And to think... she lost to Al Gore.