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

reply to post by hellobruce


And you my friend are just another Liberal Obama lover who just wants to see him exalted to the most high. Which is worse?

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
And you my friend are just another Liberal Obama lover who just wants to see

I just want to see the facts, which are in very short supply from the Obama haters.... they have to go with lies like the silly claim by the OP!

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
Star and Flag OP.

You are absolutely correct and it is grounds for the public to demand judicial law to impeach him. On that alone, that he accepted that position - he put his presidency at risk.

Mr. Pres. Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He obviously knows the law. So why would he do that? Could it be a test put to the American people? How apathetic and uninvolved is the majority? - lets test how far we can go ... maybe? It's the writer in me. I like to what if? everything...

Cirque

I think it's more the fact that he is a dictator already. He knows there is nothing anyone can do about it. All of our major intelligence and military leaders have been replaced with cronies. There is nobody left that can stop Obama or the powers behind Obama other than the American public are Russia and or China.

Strange to think Russians live more free than Americans these days.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
And you my friend are just another Liberal Obama lover who just wants to see

I just want to see the facts, which are in very short supply from the Obama haters.... they have to go with lies like the silly claim by the OP!

Then lets go on this then. What lies, just so we are on the same page. Are you saying that President Obama did not reside in the rotation to chair the security council? Or that it is unconstitutional (read my initial response into this thread).

There is nothing wrong with a sitting president from presiding over the United Nations Security Council unless that authority has not been granted by Congress as prescribed by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. A duty already prescribed and delegated to the United States ambassador to the UN.

As of my first post, I have been scouring the Daily Digest from 2009 and cannot find the authority granted by Congress. To me, that is a clear violation on not only the Executive, but also the Legislative.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
There is nothing wrong with a sitting president from presiding over the United Nations Security Council unless that authority has not been granted by Congress as prescribed by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution

Why do you ignore the fact that 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.

So Obama did not need congress permission.

You also ignore this

(f) Representation by President or Secretary of State Nothing contained in this section shall preclude the President or the Secretary of State, at the direction of the President, from representing the United States at any meeting or session of any organ or agency of the United Nations.

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

So Obama is within his power to do exactly what he did.... but you ignore that just so you can have another whine about Obama.

First,this is not about hating Obama. TPTB needed someone like him...a minority. If you say anything they (TPTB) pull the race card. That was the first term administration.The US is the most racist place in the world. If you are not a WASP (Old money-Sure most of you have never heard that term) you are screwed. It was just as bad to be an Irish catholic as being black about 80-90 years ago but no one speaks to that.

The TPTB suppress minorities with abortions, drug laws, EBT cards and minimum wage jobs. They dangle the carrot. They tricked them to vote him into office by showing the minorities they can achieve greatness like the current president. Except he is not one of them...he was never was. He did not grow up in the ghetto.

So now he promises the world while he is raising taxes on those who are working two jobs who every year get a 12 cent raise but their taxes go up 20 dollars a week, inflation keeps them eating fast food and selling drugs on the side and the housing market they opened up, sold to and then foreclosed on is gone with that little bit of savings that was used to buy those houses. It is so much bigger than just one argument and people are still blaming Bush. What is wrong with you people?

It is all about making the all mighty dollar and controlling the masses. Sorry, but Barack was the scary rich 'white guy' you did not want in office and you voted him in for change. While he is turning us against each other and taking that last dime, I wll be buying ammo to...oh ,.that's right...I can't.

He has assigned hundreds of czars so why is this one so important to him? Maybe the UN just wants JayZ for the holiday party...

reply to post by hellobruce


Relax I am not whining about anything. If this is how you conduct mutual discussion it is poor at best.

Lets look at the whole section you cite:
First:

(a) Appointment of representative; rank, status, and tenure; duties
The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a representative of the United States to the United Nations who shall have the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President...

Pesky "advice and consent" again....that would have been Ambassador Rice.

I am not questioning the representation of the United States (the section you cherry-picked from Title 22), but rather the act of self-appointing the rank and status of an Ambassador to the UN. The president showing up to make a case is one thing and it is well within his power to do so as per Title 22. What isn't in his power is to self-appoint himself to be the Ambassador Extraordinary to the UN.

Here is another one you skipped:

The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint additional persons with appropriate titles, rank, and status to represent the United States in the principal organs of the United Nations...including the Security Council

See my initial post on what the Founders defined and held in regard as to "titles of nobility". It isn't solely limited to Nations or even preconceived held titles such as King or Queen.