What he said. Come on guys, every president has accepted awards, gifts, medals, and all sorts of crap from various organizations, kings, and governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
Printable View
What he said. Come on guys, every president has accepted awards, gifts, medals, and all sorts of crap from various organizations, kings, and governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
But Bruno, the article makes very good points - previous presidents have received the Nobel prize for what they did - it was retroactive. Obama received the prize for what he "might" do - and that could be seen as influence peddling. Given that it's from a foreign state, it carries even more weight with respect to consequences.
I know that this is a bit out in left (or right) field of common sense, but thinking strictly in terms of constitutionality, I think that there's a real potential concern here.
Mark
This is a valid point. And it is a huge sum, and the prize might cause him to live up to it. From that pov I conced the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Man
However, President Bush and his minions received lots and lots of swag from various foreign officials, the house of Saud in particular. Where was the outcry then from the Republicans? The silence was deafening if I recall correctly.
Now, 2 wrongs don't make a right (3 lefts do:)) but some of the critique is a bit hypocritical imo. Btw our prime minister gave Bush a bicycle.
yes but the Republican Presidents always have had Congress' consent IMO IIRC MTCW ETC
Unconstitutional. Wow. Crying "unconstitutional" these days, I'm sadly afraid to say, in my opinion. has the teeth of an octogenarian who left his soaking in the glass on the nightstand; none. I mean, seriously, it seems to be almost completely ignored.
Those in power regardless of what party they belong to seem to walk over the constitution with an overtness that I don't recall seeing at such a pervasive level in my lifetime.
If you think this prize acceptance is unconstitutional, my point is:........get in line; you're WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY in the back.
Chris L
Like the Bushies used to say about making 'their own reality'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
They might have received gifts but the article ALSO said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
"As is common practice, Bush did not keep most of the gifts -- except for Gandhi's autobiography and a book about him, both from Nirmal Deshpande -- but passed most along to the US National Archives or other US government offices."
There must be a dollar limit on "gifts" that they are allowed to receive, since the article also said:
"The Saudi king gave Cheney the most expensive present on the list, which the US State Department is required to make public under US law -- a 55,000-dollar, 18-karat white gold, ruby and diamond jewelry set."
Now, I don't know if "make public" means they just had to let people know about it, or whether it means, the items become public property, i.e. property of the United States. That point is vague.
Granted, 55k is chump change when it comes to the $1.4M that Obama got, but to me, it's still a form of bribery.
Look at college athletes that get "gifts"...it's the patrons way of saying "I like what you're trying to do, keep it up!" Again, BRIBERY...
Whether Obama gave it to charity or not, it wasn't HIS to give away. That money belonged to the people of the United States.
Ok, that's my rant for this thread...out!
Ah, here we go...just found this, pay attention to the bold parts:
"Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center sends me this, U.S. Code Title 5, Part III, Subpart F, Chapter 73, Subchapter IV, Section 7342: Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations. (Of course.) It does specify that the President is included in this: (b) An employee may not—
(1) request or otherwise encourage the tender of a gift or decoration; or
(2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in accordance with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d).
(c)
(1) The Congress consents to—
(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; and
(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that—
(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States; and
(ii) an employee may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the United States (such as transportation, food, and lodging) of more than minimal value if such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency and any regulations which may be prescribed by the employing agency.
(d) The Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee. Without this approval, the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing agency for official use, for forwarding to the Administrator of General Services for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(1), or for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(2). "
I heard that the people refused it on the grounds that they didn't earn it, so he was forced to give it to charity insteadQuote:
Originally Posted by avatar1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
AIG??? or was it Acorn???