Unconstitutional? Obama 1st US Pres ever to become UN Security council chairman

Originally posted by below
Does the Constitution section 9 not clearly enough state that no 'title of nobility or office to a foreign allegiance be allowed without express consent of Congress?

Why repost 4 year old crap? It has even been posted here at least 3 times before!
It was NOT unconstitutional - just why do you claim it was?

To quote from one of those threads

" The UN is neither a "king" nor a nobility of any kind and it surely does no constitute a "foreign state" in any true sense.

This seems like another one of these knee-jerk "let's criticize anything that comes to mind, who needs facts"-threads that are preached to the choir here. If you're going to hate Obama, or disagree with him, do that for a reason, one grounded in reality preferably. "

Also U.S. Code Title 22c7xvi287. Representation in an Organization

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Oh, you're no fun. Where can I go with that? We agree 100%!

Something I can't recall too often. lol.... Not at all unpleasant, either.

Your rabbit looks stupid!
Does that help?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by below
Does the Constitution section 9 not clearly enough state that no 'title of nobility or office to a foreign allegiance be allowed without express consent of Congress?

Why repost 4 year old crap? It has even been posted here at least 3 times before!
It was NOT unconstitutional - just why do you claim it was?

To quote from one of those threads

" The UN is neither a "king" nor a nobility of any kind and it surely does no constitute a "foreign state" in any true sense.

This seems like another one of these knee-jerk "let's criticize anything that comes to mind, who needs facts"-threads that are preached to the choir here. If you're going to hate Obama, or disagree with him, do that for a reason, one grounded in reality preferably. "

Slow news day. Gotta dig in the archives of Rense to find a reason to grump. Infowars is probably down or something.

Don't hold your breath

He can't even run the country properly. I can only imagine what's going to transpire now.... Forget gun legislation... He's about to sanction the friggen world~

reply to post by SaturnFX


What do you mean what's my point? Look. Politics isn't my area. I'd like to learn though. Others, have much more experience, and when they step up to teach and share knowledge - I learn and change and grow. So when I'm in learning mode, I ask questions.

I want a president who puts America first and foremost. I want that to be his number one priority. Everything else is or should be secondary - and being set in his UN position - I don't think that's keeping all other politics - particularly at a world scale secondary. Now he's put in two positions. How does that work out? Is he putting America first? It just seems a conflict. Why not do your terms and then once your out of office - take the UN position?

Cirque

reply to post by below


Now! Now! Let's not get too drastic with any action.
Let's simply let him resign from being the President of the US. He ain't doin' too good of a job anyway. After all, where is my free stuff?

Doesn't the UN sit at the head of all nations? And doesn't the antichrist sit at the head of all nations to bring peace to the whole world, then sudden destruction?

I see Revelations unfolding day by day

Obama 1st US Pres ever to become UN Security council chairman

I recall when it was predicted that Bill Clinton would be UN GS and be the first... and maybe the last as he would lead to the NWO and such.

Poor Bill, one B/J and his presidency was quashed, his wife eventually because Secretary of Obama and his daughter owned the teen magazines for a spell.

Only time will tell.

This is really old news. It started back in 09.

Not really sure why its being debated again.

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

What do you mean what's my point? Look. Politics isn't my area. I'd like to learn though. Others, have much more experience, and when they step up to teach and share knowledge - I learn and change and grow. So when I'm in learning mode, I ask questions.

I want a president who puts America first and foremost. I want that to be his number one priority. Everything else is or should be secondary - and being set in his UN position - I don't think that's keeping all other politics - particularly at a world scale secondary. Now he's put in two positions. How does that work out? Is he putting America first? It just seems a conflict. Why not do your terms and then once your out of office - take the UN position?

Cirque

The position at the time was basically being the head of the table for nuclear proliferation talks. its not some lifetime endless full time job. it was basically being the #1 at the table
that -is- thinking about America first.
As far as the whats the point comment, that was meant to be understood that many positions do the things you were asking (making demands, etc)...a manager does that at their job, NATO does that, the UN does that, etc..that doesn't make them sovereign nations Just a position of authority.
Its good to learn politics, but its best to learn in a way that is actually imparting actual knowledge without a narrative. Look, the thread title is a question..Unconstitutional? and the answer is no..its not...that's all the politics of it, what this thread is, is not politics, nor will you learn from it..it is spinning, baiting, and neocon gossip. If that's what your seeking, then by all means.
Obama is wearing a necktie...unconstitutional? (no, but who cares, lets slam him anyhow).


So far, Wrabbit made the only valid debate point..which is, why does Obama himself feel the need to head up? Doesn't he have highly trained staff for just that position? Does he have no faith in them? This is good productive gossip in regards to the debate...not the whole if he talks about nuclear proliferation, he will forget to revise the tax rates..

why is there a fart at the 18'' mark?

Ok ok... I'll watch the rest of the video... its just blew away my concentration. I'm sorry.

EDIT:

Well if its legal... why not? If he can handle it...

Originally posted by mideast
I think you should be happy that thee peaceful unconstitutional president of US is going to bring peace to the world by any mean.

I am staying awake to see how much peace he is going to bring to the world.

Ummm.....NO, NO, NO...It's how many pieces not "how much peace"...pieces

YouSir

Guess we better get ready to loose some kids in Syria.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by mideast
I think you should be happy that thee peaceful unconstitutional president of US is going to bring peace to the world by any mean.

I am staying awake to see how much peace he is going to bring to the world.

Oh yeah, right... Ask Libya and Syria how that whole Nobel Peace Prize concept feels from their perspective. How about Afghanistan ..or more to the point, Pakistan, Yemen and Central/North Africa? (Drone land, all of it)

Something tells me we won't be singing Kumbaya and holding hands any time soon ..nor is it what he has in mind. There are very few policies of Bush that he hasn't kept and actually expanded upon. Those dropped? Were political.

* ....Anyone else reminded even a little of Nicholae Carpathia? Not the full reference and meaning, perhaps ..but then, it doesn't actually have to be, to be very disturbing. It's getting uncomfortably close to things I NEVER thought in a bad dream I'd actually see happen in the real world.

edit on 2-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Ummm...Brer Rabbit...methinks MidEast was using some sarcasm there...Kinda like saying "wake me when the mets win the series"...or..."I am staying awake to see how much peace he brings the world".........pure sarcasm...nothing more...

YouSir

reply to post by SaturnFX


Saturn FX,

I don't actually know why I am writing this because I KNOW for a fact from reading your posts that you are highly intelligent! Which leads me to believe that your arguments are more based on defending the indefensible than any sincere belief on your part that what is happening is not of a dubious nature. But here goes anyway!

In any number of publications and even in the memoirs of presidents written after the fact it is made abundantly clear that the office of president is a duty that demands quite literally every waking hour of the person holding the office. Therein lies the crux of the FIRST thing wrong with this! The American public has a RIGHT to expect that our duly elected president will devote his efforts to manning the helm of the ship of state! By rights he cannot do this nearly as effectively if he is also doing another job at the same time! That is simple time management 101 stuff right there! Plus this president who is becoming more and more infamous for the amount of time he spends NOT running the ship of state, and instead golfing, vacationing, or appearing on daytime TV quite frankly in the eyes of most of the country needs to spend LESS time doing all the other crap he's been doing and spend more time focusing on being the president! How is adding one more very time and skullsweat intensive job like this going to increase his ability to run the nation effectively?

In addition I'd like to point out that we have passed legislation over the years that is specifically designed to unburden the sitting president of ANY responsibilities outside of doing his job as president! This is why even though we pay him a salary we also cover nearly every expense incurred by himself or his immediate family during his time in office. There are a myriad of other things along these lines that are also done, which I KNOW you are aware of all of which were specifically put in place to keep the president focused on running the country and NOTHING ELSE! It is in effect a huge betrayal of our trust and a colossal theft of public resources to have Obama decide unilaterally that he will pursue other commitments during his tenure in office! In fact anyone who looks at this dispassionately and coldly will see that this is a blatant slap in the face of those that have put their trust in him to put his FULL ATTENTION into running this country during his time in office!

Now the 2nd problem with this is potentially much greater than the first! By assuming the role as security council chairman while simultaneously holding the office of president of the United States of America he is in fact creating a direct and VERY dangerous conflict of interest as well as setting a very disturbing precedent!

Conflict of Interest: To put it bluntly not everything that is in the best interest of the international community at large will be in the best interest of the United States and her citizens. So WHEN these issues come up are we just supposed to trust him to do what's best for us or for the world at large? If you read his own statements and writings I think you will find that we cannot in fact trust him to do what is best for our nation in a circumstance such as this! As such it is irresponsible, disingenuous, reckless, and highly suspect that he would seek to take this avenue!

Propaganda: Again to be horribly blunt this move projects an extremely negative image of our nation to the rest of the world! In a time where a vast number of nations on this earth and the people that reside in them see the United States as an increasingly domineering influence on the world stage, what kind of message do you think it sends when our president decides being president is not enough and also takes the job as security council chairman? If you don't see a problem with this let me point it out for you! Now every time Obama makes a decision in his capacity at the security council it will be seen as having the full force of the US government behind it! This will create a situation where other nations feel even more bullied by the US, but also and MUCH more importantly to Americans will create a situation where the president has once again done an end run around the checks and balances put in place by our founding fathers! Now some of you will pugnaciously ask how it does this so I'll give you a simple example. Say Obama casts a vote in his capacity as security council chairman that congress does not like and the american public does not support, who has the authority to fire him to keep him from making more BINDING decisions that do not reflect the will of the people?

I am no longer shocked by the boundless narcissism and blatant disregard for the will of the people this man shows, but remain shocked at the acceptance and SUPPORT of his actions by smart people.

I will simplify this argument of whether or not our President of The United States is allowed to do this. This is not perception, this is not guessing, This is not arguing, but, but but, Ill just attack credibility. A few questions.


Does He have a Title in this? Something like Chairman? If he has a title Then yes, that is another office. We are in a state of decline which is starting to snowball. Our economical issues, Our health issues, Ability to make a comfortable living. Opinions, trust, We ignore fukushima dumping the whole eastern seaboard of the U.S. with radiation fallout from like 6 or so reactors. A nuclear waste tank leaking by a river and getting ignored. And instead of bringing any of this significant news to light to the public for action and helping America for a change, He grabs another lofty position with even more crap to throw around when he gets mad. He isnt for us, He has NONE of our needs in consideration, and he is venomous.

I will watch to see where all this goes. I hope we can handle this the right way....

Originally posted by mactheaxe
I will watch to see where all this goes.

As it happened 4 years ago it went nowhere. No one in congress objected, the only people whining about it are people who whine about anything Obama does

reply to post by hellobruce


I see no clear rebuttal from my comment. What I see is a verbal attack to discredit others. We all know these arent whinings. These are right in front of our faces. Look them up, Because when your ignorance bubble does pop, it will hit you right in the face and you will see the truth. I truly hope you wake up and see what is going on in the world.

Originally posted by mactheaxe
I see no clear rebuttal from my comment.

It has been rebutted, as it was in the other 3 threads here over the last 4 years...

"The UN is neither a "king" nor a nobility of any kind and it surely does no constitute a "foreign state" in any true sense.
This seems like another one of these knee-jerk "let's criticize anything that comes to mind, who needs facts"-threads that are preached to the choir here. If you're going to hate Obama, or disagree with him, do that for a reason, one grounded in reality preferably. "
Also U.S. Code Title 22c7xvi287. Representation in an Organization"