The second fallacy used is to define the Constitution by other laws. The truth is that laws are defined by the Constitution, and precedent.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

Not that he doesn’t have to potential to do so, but let’s remember that the nominations were made earlier in the year, I believe it was by February 1st. Maybe it was January… Ultimately, I don’t see anything Obama has done by that time that qualifies him. Rhetoric is rhetoric. It’s a manipulation of peoples minds to believe what isn’t necessarily true. Did this work for you?

Since the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901, the Peace Prize has, in accordance with Alfred Nobel’s will, been awarded by a committee of five, appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian Parliamant), but without the committee being formally responsible to the Storting.

[. . .]

The committee is formally independent even of the Storting, and since 1901 it has repeatedly emphasized its independence.

[. . .]

The year after, the Norwegian Storting formally decided to ban members of the Government from the Committee. A second change was made in 1977, when the Storting decided that its members should not participate in nonparliamentary committees appointed by the Storting itself.

[. . .]

Unlike the prize award ceremony in Stockholm, it is the Chairman of the Nobel Committee, and not the King, who presents the diploma and the medal.

This is meant to emphasise the independence of the Nobel Committee.

Nobel Prize website

Bribes could be for one of many reasons. First, Norways retirement fund was Heavily invested in our financial sector when the economy began drying up. If they ever release the AIG records on where federal money was used, we’d see it went to nations who have “Sovereign Wealth Funds” – one of the few heavily invested in financial markets that appeared to show no loss.

Other is, Norway is heavily invested in Green Energy Technology. How great would it be for them to have a one up on that!

That’s just off the top of my head.

It is amazing how fast you can determine that there is nothing worth reading if you are paying attention.

And if you are reading a lawyers blog, you best be paying attention.

What an idiot.

Second, how can you say that taking the prize is “unconstitutional” and not mention the fraking statute? Was that just sloppiness or did they conveniently ignore a statute that would cut the nads off their theory? And are they REALLY saying that the statute itself is unconstitutional? Er, no. Because under no rational argument does it fall outside of Congress’ authority to create a statute governing the acceptance of prizes by government employees.

And you people who called it a “bribe”: OK, I’ll bite. Please identify the corrupt official act that the Nobel committee expects in exchange for the prize.

The anti-Obama derangement seems to know no boundaries.

Waste93: title

Given the earlier wording of the clause, “Title” here refers to Title of Nobility.

* For example, it has happened before, twice, and no one raised a fuss then.

E Vattel: If you are not a natural-born citizen at birth, you’ll never be one.
Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens of that country. Anyone who has dual citizenship at birth is by definition NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

In order, the above sentences are true, false, false. Nice try, though.

Mark FieldThe letter does no such thing. It expressly states that precedent, not some other reason, was responsible for Madison’s change of mind. He even uses the word “precedent” 3 times.

You don’t have to agree with Madison about the effect of precedent, but it’s pointless to deny that he considered precedent, properly defined, a legitimate source of authority.

Madison Said:

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a constitution should be fixed and known, than that the meaning of a law should be so? Can, indeed, a law be fixed in its meaning and operation, unless the constitution be so? On the contrary, if a particular legislature, differing in the construction of the constitution, from a series of preceding constructions, proceed to act on that difference, they not only introduce uncertainty and instability in the constitution, but in the laws themselves; inasmuch as all laws preceding the new construction, and inconsistent with it, are not only annulled for the future, but virtually pronounced nullities from the beginning.

Ignoring Precedent put down for the rules of construction would certainly be foolish. Unfortunately, some Supreme Court Justices did just that to bring us to the new construction in place now. (Congress believes its powers are unlimited… I disagree.) The Rule of Law determines precedents. But we can’t have precedents determining the rule of law. (New Construction introduces uncertainty and isntability in the constitution and the laws themselves. as stated previously.

The letter I included in the last post disputes your claim.

The letter does no such thing. It expressly states that precedent, not some other reason, was responsible for Madison’s change of mind. He even uses the word “precedent” 3 times.

You don’t have to agree with Madison about the effect of precedent, but it’s pointless to deny that he considered precedent, properly defined, a legitimate source of authority.

Mark Field:
Call it whatever you like. Your argument about Madison’s original position, even if true, is irrelevant to the issue you originally raised about precedent. Madison originally took the view that the first Bank was unconstitutional. He later changed his mind. That change was NOT because Congress fixed his original objection or avoided the problem somehow when it created the second Bank, it was because he accepted the precedent of the first Bank. And he expressly said that precedent was his reason.

I’ve read a great deal of Madison’s writings. The letter I included in the last post disputes your claim. He objected to the constitutionality of such a bank, in 1791, As an ands, rather than a means to an end. Though Washington signed it, it expired in 1811 under Madison. The bill to recharter failed. Madison did, however, revive it in the form of the Second bank of the United States.

Ultimately, Government needed to borrow money to help pay for the war, so the bank was established as a means to that delegated power to borrow money on the credit of the US.

Mind if I call Bullsh*t?
The 1st B.U.S. that Madison veto’d wasn’t on the ground that “Establishment of Banks” was unconstitutional, but the bill as a whole, not on establishment in general.

Call it whatever you like. Your argument about Madison’s original position, even if true, is irrelevant to the issue you originally raised about precedent.

Madison originally took the view that the first Bank was unconstitutional. He later changed his mind. That change was NOT because Congress fixed his original objection or avoided the problem somehow when it created the second Bank, it was because he accepted the precedent of the first Bank. And he expressly said that precedent was his reason.

Mark Field: I don’t know where you’re getting this, but it’s wrong. Madison originally took the position that the Bank was unconstitutional, period. He later changed his mind on the basis of precedent, and expressly said that it was precedent which caused him to change his mind.In any case, establishing a bank in DC is irrelevant to the actual BUS, which was headquartered in Philadelphia and operated nationwide.

Mind if I call Bullsh*t?
The 1st B.U.S. that Madison veto’d wasn’t on the ground that “Establishment of Banks” was unconstitutional, but the bill as a whole, not on establishment in general.

James Madison: Already in Progress…
The charge of inconsistency between my objection to the constitutionality of such a bank, in 1791, and my assent in 1817, turns on the question, how far legislative precedents, expounding the constitution, ought to guide succeeding legislatures, and to overrule individual opinions.

Some obscurity has been thrown over the question, by confounding it with the respect due from one legislature to laws passed by preceding legislatures. But the two cases are essentially different. A constitution being derived from a superior authority, is to be expounded and obeyed, not controlled or varied by the subordinate authority of a legislature. A law, on the other hand, resting on no higher authority than that possessed by every successive legislature, its expediency as well as its meaning is within the scope of the latter

The case in question has its true analogy in the obligation arising from judicial expositions of the law on succeeding judges; the constitution being a law to the legislator, as the law is a rule of decision to the judge. –And why are judicial precedents, when formed on due discussion and consideration, and deliberately sanctioned by reviews and repetitions, regarded as of binding influence, or rather of authoritative force, in settling the meaning of a law? It must be answered, 1st, because it is a reasonable and established axiom, that the good of society requires that the rules of conduct of its members should be certain and known, which would not be the case if any judge, disregarding the decisions of his predecessors, should vary the rule of law according to his individual interpretation of it. Misera est servitus ubi jus est aut vagum aut incognitum. 2nd. because an exposition of the law, publicly made, and repeatedly confirmed by the constituted authority, carries with it, by fair inference, the sanction of those who, having made the law through their legislative organ, appear, under such circumstances, to have determined its meaning through their judiciary organ.

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a constitution should be fixed and known, than that the meaning of a law should be so? Can, indeed, a law be fixed in its meaning and operation, unless the constitution be so? On the contrary, if a particular legislature, differing in the construction of the constitution, from a series of preceding constructions, proceed to act on that difference, they not only introduce uncertainty and instability in the constitution, but in the laws themselves; inasmuch as all laws preceding the new construction, and inconsistent with it, are not only annulled for the future, but virtually pronounced nullities from the beginning.

But it is said that the legislator having sworn to support the constitution, must support it in his own construction of it, however different from that put on it by his predecessors, or whatever be the consequences of the construction. And is not the judge under the same oath to support the law? Yet, has it ever been supposed that he was required, or at liberty to disregard all precedents, however solemnly repeated and regularly observed; and by giving effect to his own abstract and individual opinions, to disturb the established course of practice in the business of the community? Has the wisest and most conscientious judge ever scrupled to acquiesce in decisions in which he has been overruled by the matured opinions of the majority of his colleagues; and subsequently to conform himself thereto, as to authoritative expositions of the law? And is it not reasonable to suppose that the same view of the official oath should be taken by a legislature, acting under the constitution, which is his guide, as is taken by a judge, acting under the law, which is his?

There is in fact, and in common understanding, a necessity of regarding a course of practice, as above characterized, in the light of a legal rule of interpreting a law: and there is a like necessity of considering it a constitutional rule of interpreting a constitution.

That there may be extraordinary and peculiar circumstances controlling the rule in both cases, may be admitted; but with such exceptions, the rule will force itself on the practical judgment of the most ardent theorist. He will find it impossible to adhere to, and act officially upon, his solitary opinions as to the meaning of the law or constitution, in opposition to a construction reduced to practice, during a reasonable period of time; more especially where no prospect existed of a change of construction by the public or its agents. And if a reasonable period of time, marked with the usual sanctions, would not bar the individual prerogative, there could be no limitation to its exercise, although the danger of error must increase with the increasing oblivion of explanatory circumstances, and with the continual changes in the import of words and phrases.

Let it then be left to the decision of every intelligent and candid judge, which, on the whole, is most to be relied on, for the true and safe construction of a constitution: that which has the uniform sanction of successive legislative bodies, through a period of years, and under the varied ascendancy of parties; or that which depends upon the opinions of every new legislature, heated as it may be by the spirit of party, eager in the pursuit of some favorite object, or led astray by the eloquence and address of popular statesmen, themselves, perhaps, under the influence of the same misleading causes.

It was in conformity with the view here taken of the respect due to deliberate and reiterated precedents, that the Bank of the United States, though on the original question held to be unconstitutional, received the Executive signature in the year 1817. The act originally establishing a bank had undergone ample discussions in its passage through the several branches of the Government. It had been carried into execution, throughout a period of twenty years, with annual legislative recognitions; in one instance, indeed, with a positive ramification of it into a new State, and with the entire acquiescence of all the local authorities, as well as the nation at large; to all of which may be added, a decreasing prospect of any change in the public opinion adverse to the constitutionality of such an institution. A veto from the Executive, under these circumstances, with an admission of the expediency and almost necessity of the measure, would have been a defiance of all the obligations derived from a course of precedents amounting to the requisite evidence of the national judgment and intention.

It has been contended that the authority of precedents was in that case invalidated by the consideration that they proved only a respect for the stipulated duration of the bank with a toleration of it until the law should expire, and by the casting vote given in the Senate by the Vice President, in the year 1811, against a bill for establishing a national bank, the vote being expressly given on the ground of unconstitutionally. But, if the law itself was unconstitutional, the stipulation was void, and could not be constitutionally fulfilled or tolerated. And as to the negative of the Senate, by the casting vote of the presiding officer, it is a fact, well understood at the time, that it resulted not from an equality of opinions in that assembly on the power of Congress to establish a bank, but from a junction of those who admitted the power, but disapproved the plan, with those who denied the power. On a simple question or constitutionality, there was a decided majority in favor of it.

JAMES MADISON

Steven: My disclaimer: I am a lawyer. My comment: This discussion is monumentally pointless. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares? Is an Act of Congress required? Who cares? Do something useful, rake your lawn, wash the windows, anything. It will be time well spent. Someone may thank you for doing it.

The true nature of law escapes most lawyers. Who cares? Those sworn to support the constitution, and defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. As for the ‘chores’ – Sorry, I do care about the rule of law, care about my country, and care about Government expanding it’s jurisdiction to defend honor, overthrow foreign leaders, and putting the lives of men and women at risk because of the nobility of their missionary work… Praise Democracy… We are not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed.

Everyday, political factions become more and more religious, passing legislation restricting people liberty for the purpose of “Saving them from themselves.” With liberty comes responsibility, without it, Liberty is an illusion. When a person cannot decide for themselves, when they lack the knowledge to make the right choice, then parents are failing in their duties to prepare their children for adulthood.

But if they’re only hurting themselves, they need the lesson to make them understand why. Take away experience, and you lose the single most important learning tool any person will ever have.

Not exactly. Madison held that establishing a National Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, but a bank could be established withing the district of columbia, which they have power to pass any laws whatsoever, and territories.

I don’t know where you’re getting this, but it’s wrong. Madison originally took the position that the Bank was unconstitutional, period. He later changed his mind on the basis of precedent, and expressly said that it was precedent which caused him to change his mind.

In any case, establishing a bank in DC is irrelevant to the actual BUS, which was headquartered in Philadelphia and operated nationwide.

Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land & rules over all laws, precedent can never be supreme.

This statement makes no sense. Precedent is about saying what the Constitution, as supreme law of the land, commands. It cannot be “supreme” over the constitution because it does not purport to replace it.

“The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.”

Mark Field says:
Madison didn’t agree. He famously changed his opinion of the constitutionality of the Bank precisely because of the precedent: “It was in conformity with the view here taken of the respect due to deliberate and reiterated precedent, that the Bank of the United States, though on the original question held [by Madison] to be unconstitutional, received [Madison’s presidential] signature in the year 1817.” Madison to Jared Ingersoll, June 25, 1831.

Not exactly. Madison held that establishing a National Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, but a bank could be established withing the district of columbia, which they have power to pass any laws whatsoever, and territories.

One could also be established in order to carry out one of the enumerated powers under Section 8, Article I.

Constitutionality requires that the power is restricted to the Jurisdiction of the federal government, and the interpretation must be valid to the intents and purposes established by the Preamble.

President Obama will receive the money, the gold(ish) medal, and a diploma. Do you think he will at least be able to keep the diploma?

Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land & rules over all laws, precedent can never be supreme.

Madison didn’t agree. He famously changed his opinion of the constitutionality of the Bank precisely because of the precedent:

“It was in conformity with the view here taken of the respect due to deliberate and reiterated precedent, that the Bank of the United States, though on the original question held [by Madison] to be unconstitutional, received [Madison’s presidential] signature in the year 1817.” Madison to Jared Ingersoll, June 25, 1831.

Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusts, 353 U.S. 230 (1957), illustrates the fallacy of Litigator London’s argument that the award of the Nobel by a committee selected by Norway’s Parliament is private, not governmental.

Litigator London’s argument that the gift is from a private foundation misses the mark.

Even putting aside the clear role of the Norwegian Parliament, a foreign government, in the bestowing the prize, far less clearly “governmental” conduct has been held subject to constitutional limits: the U.S. Supreme Court — which interprets the U.S. Constitution — once held that a trustee appointed by a state court to fulfill a private will constituted government action subject to constitutional limits in a case involving a Philadelphia school and will. See Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusts, 353 U.S. 230 (1957) (so holding).

The trustee was not a government official. By contrast, the Nobel committee includes members of Norway’s Parliament, high-ranking officials of a (foreign) government.

Even putting aside the clear role of the Norwegian Parliament, a foreign government, in the bestowing the prize, far less clearly “governmental” conduct has been held subject to constitutional limits: the U.S. Supreme Court — which interprets the U.S. Constitution — once held that a trustee appointed by a state court to fulfill a private will constituted government action subject to constitutional limits in a case involving a Philadelphia school and will.

The power to nominate persons to the Peace Prize Committee is indeed vested in the Norwegian Parliament. A power of appointment under a will trust is often vested in one or more public office holders, eg, in the UK, often the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Public Trustee, but it is fairly elementary trust law that the power of appointment does not mean that the appointees act in anything other than a private capacity and their decisions are certainly not acts of the state.

The prize is therefore not one from a prince, King or foreign state but from a private foundation and therefore would seem to fall outwith the constitutional prohibition.

Like, if I’m going to rake the lawn, I’m going to have to move over to the Global Warming thread, since it is freezing (AKA 32 degrees F) and there about 4 inches of snow on the lawn.

Other obviousness previously mentioned.