Obama's Nobel is unconstitutional

Many have questioned whether Barack Obama truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

That's not the purpose of this column.

As far as I am concerned, the Nobel ceased to have much in the way of honorific qualities after it was bestowed on such unsavory and unworthy candidates as Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev and Kofi Annan.

My concern about Barack Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is that it was patently unconstitutional.

I guess that should surprise no one given Obama's penchant for unconstitutional activity.

Yet, this one is flagrant, personal and, worst of all, petty.

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, known as the emolument clause, 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. …"

Is Obama really out to defend the "little guy"? Far from it. Learn realities of president's policies you won't see on cable news: "Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses"

Most Americans may not realize, as I did not until very recently, that the Nobel commission is elected by the parliament of Norway. That means the peace prize is made by a commission representing the legislature of a foreign state. There's little question the award amounts to an emolument – at nearly $1.5 million and a priceless gold medal.

Back in 1902, the U.S. attorney general advised that even "a simple remembrance" qualified as an emolument – "any present of any kind whatever." In 1993, President Bill Clinton's legal counsel affirmed that finding and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns" – but even when foreign governments work through other devices and organizations.

When I first heard about this, I was somewhat mollified by the fact that Obama announced he would give the money to charity.

But there are four big problems with that:

It's not his money to give away. If he files for a tax deduction for the prize money, as he surely will, it would reduce his income taxes by about a half-million dollars.
A federal statute states 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."
No mention was ever made of turning over the gold medal to charity or to the government of the United States.
He did not get the consent of the Congress of the United States.

Why is that last one so important?

Because it's the law of the land.

Some might suggest the current Congress would surely give Obama anything he wanted – and that's probably true.

But that begs the question of why he didn't ask before accepting the gift.

Did Obama ignore this constitutional provision because he didn't know about it?

I don't think so. This is a man who has prided himself in having been a professor of constitutional law.

Did Obama ignore this constitutional provision because he did not want to appear to be obsequious to the Congress?

I don't think so. This is a man who has prided himself on consensus building, respecting the separation of powers and running the most ethical administration in history.

Did Obama ignore this constitutional provision because he did not want to call attention to his actions and the fact that an act of Congress would be necessary for him to accept the emolument?

Maybe. But why hasn't anyone in Congress raised the issue as a matter addressed quite clearly and in plain language by the Constitution?

Did Obama ignore this constitutional provision because he considers himself above the law and the Constitution and/or because he really wanted to benefit personally from the award?

Maybe.

Or did Obama ignore this constitutional provision, as he has so many others, because he actually seeks to undermine the foundational document of American government?

Greed? Ignorance? Pride? Intentional violation of the highest law in the land?

What is the reason and rationale?

Is it all of the above?

Am I missing anything?