Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Rep. Cliff Stearns, and Rep. Ron Paul say “no,” and have sent a letter to the President asking him to request congressional consent, which they expect would be speedily given. They point to the example of President Theodore Roosevelt, who created a committee, including the Chief Justice, to hold Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize money in trust until he left office. After leaving office, Roosevelt asked for congressional consent to disburse the money to particular charities.
Article I, § 9, clause 8, of the Constitution states that “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.”
When Roosevelt won the Peace Prize, there was apparently no controlling statute. Today there is: 5 USC § 7342 (titled “Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations”) sets out the conditions under which foreign gifts can be accepted without a separate action of Congress. The statute applies to an “employee,” which includes “the President and the Vice President.”
A “foreign government” includes ” any agent or representative of any such [foreign] unit or such organization, while acting as such.” Since the Nobel Peace Prize committee is, as the Representatives note, appointed by the Norwegian Storting (the legislature), it would seem to be within the scope of the statute.
A “gift” is “a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) .” A “decoration” includes a ” medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award.”
By the statute, Congress explicitly consents to employee receipt of gifts of “minimal value,” which is “means a retail value in the United States at the time of acceptance of $100 or less.” The statute authorizes the Administrator of General Services to make regulations to adjust “minimal value” to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, beginning in 1981, and reflecting CPI changes in the previous three years. Roughly speaking, $100 in 1978 is about $327 today.
A Peace Prize laureate receives a diploma, a 196-gram gold medal, and a large check (10 million Swedish crowns in 2007). The spot price of gold is $33 a gram, so the medal and the check obviously do not qualify for the “minimal value” exception. The diploma, as a piece of paper, could, although not if it were delivered with an expensive frame.
In the statute, Congress also formally “consents” to an employee receiving and keeping “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.” The diploma and the medal both fit within the definition of “decoration.” As President, Obama is the head of his own “employing agency,” and therefore can approve his receipt of the medal and the diploma.
The check is not a “decoration” and is of much more than “minimal value.” Employees may not accept gifts of more than minimal value. However, there are various exceptions, and the relevant one is that a gift may be accepted “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.” It would seem to be within the foreign policy discretion of President Obama to determine that refusing the Nobel check could cause offense, embarrassment, or an adverse effect on foreign relations.
Then, “Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of more than minimal value,…an employee shall– (A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or her employing agency; or (B) subject to the approval of the employing agency, deposit the gift with that agency for official use.” Accordingly, it would appear that President Obama must turn the check over to the United States government, for official use. I have not researched whether there are regulations detailing precisely how gifts which a President receives are to be disposed. It would appear that President Obama cannot personally give the Nobel money to charity.
Thus, it seems clear that the statute already supplies the constitutionally-required congressional consent for President Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and no further action by Congress is needed, provided that President Obama signs the check over the government, as the statute requires.
UPDATE: One disadvantage of VC’s new platform is that we can no longer award the coveted Green Border to especially good comments. Such honor is due to the commenter who brought up 5 C.F.R. sec. 2635.204(d). This is part of a regulation covering all gifts received by federal employees–not just gifts covered by the Constitution’s requirement of Congressional approval of gifts from foreign princes. The relevant portion of the regulation states that a federal employee can keep money from an achievement prize he is awarded, if the award is given regularly according to written standards. An example in the regulation is “an employee of the National Institutes of Health may accept the Nobel Prize for Medicine, including the cash award which accompanies the prize, even though the prize was conferred on the basis of laboratory work performed at NIH.”
I don’t think this regulation helps Obama, although, as I explained above, the statute provides him with all he needs. First, keeping the prize money is allowed only if the prize is awarded “by a person who does not have interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties or by an association or other organization the majority of whose members do not have such interests.” As has been widely discussed on the Internet, the Norwegian committee is obviously trying to influence U.S. foreign policy in a particular direction, and is making the award in part to further those interests. Second, the Nobel Prize for Medicine is awarded by an institute affiliated with a Swedish university hospital. This is very different from the Peace Prize committee, which is picked by the Norwegian Parliament. Alternatively, if the Institute counts as a Swedish government agent because the Swedish government owns the hospital (I don’t know if they do), then the example in the regulation is wrong. A regulation cannot over-ride a statute or the Constitution. The Constitution requires congressional permission; the statute provides congressional permission in certain circumstances. The executive branch, by writing a regulation for itself, cannot expand the scope of the congressional permission.
Reader says:
As a somewhat tangential question: I recall that Pres. Bush was presented with a mounted pistol that had belonged to Saddam Hussein — presented by some of the US generals after the fall of Baghdad. This struck me at the time as rather unseemly. Aren’t there laws or military regulations against American officers collecting enemy war spoils on the battlefield? This wouldn’t seem to fall under the category of a gift from a foreign government, but it does seem like a kind of private “profit” — although perhaps it was considered a gift to the Office of the President? Even so, it still strikes me as unseemly.
I ain’t no lawyer. Are there regulations covering such things? Would it be right and proper for Obama someday to (say) mount Osama bin Laden’s AK-47 on his office wall to show off to visitors?
October 28, 2009, 3:07 amBorris says:
Would it be an act of “straight up” racism to expect Obama to have to ask Congresses consent?
October 28, 2009, 3:18 amJohn D says:
Thanks for the link to the medal, it allowed me to confirm my memory about the diploma (since I saw one a few years ago).
The diploma is not given in a frame, but rather in a case that opens out to display a piece of artwork on the left and the citation on the right. This could be framed, of course, but that is not the format in which it is given.
October 28, 2009, 3:47 amJeff Walden says:
A question for my own education: had Roosevelt accepted it without getting the consent of Congress, who would have had standing to sue Roosevelt for doing so? I would guess only members of Congress would be able to do so.
A further question in the same vein: what’s the significance of there being no legislation on the matter when Roosevelt accepted it? Would it simply have made a lawsuit more of a procedural mess with unclear penalties and ultimate resolution? (Er, further reading of the post indicates at least that it provides a way for Congress to some extent to “pre-approve” the acceptance of awards. Is there any more to it than that?)
October 28, 2009, 4:01 amSteve G says:
While it’s always a little iffy to try to apply tax law to other areas, it’s worth noting that under Section 74(b) of the revenue code, if you receive an award like the Nobel and have them transfer the money directly to an eligible charity, that money is treated as if it were never yours in the first place. Section 7342 doesn’t define what it means to “accept” a gift, so there’s at least a reasonable argument that the same principle would apply. If so, Obama could have the money go to his favorite charity, rather than to the government.
October 28, 2009, 4:34 amD.O. says:
I gather a lot of folks, not to mention museums, would like to buy Obama’s Nobel diploma for much more than $100. Does it make the diploma itself subject for congressional approval or the law considers only the “face value”?
October 28, 2009, 5:20 amSwede says:
Reader
War trophies are still collected but there are guidelines on bringing them home. For example, my company, as well as others, captured mortars that were being used to hit bases in Baghdad. I don’t know what paperwork was involved but there were the typical bereaucratic forms to fill out and permissions to be granted. In the end, our company’s guidon now rests in one of the disabled and painted mortars that we captured. I’m sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar stories out there.
October 28, 2009, 5:40 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Can Obama accept the Nobel Prize without congressional consent? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matthew Stinson, DrBlindBat. DrBlindBat said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Can Obama accept the Nobel … http://bit.ly/12KJu6 [...]
October 28, 2009, 6:10 amArkady says:
Well, that’s the predicate of the request, right? It’s not clear to me that simply because the committee’s members are chosen by the Norwegian legislature the committee is thereby an agent or representative of the government. To show agency, wouldn’t you have to show that the committee is acting in behalf of the Norwegian government? Would we say that the US Olympic Committee is a agent of the US government because it is chartered by the US government?
The Supreme Court said no:
S.F. ARTS & ATHLETICS, INC. V. USOC, 483 U. S. 522 (1987)
Just asking.
[DK: Corporate chartering isn't the issue, otherwise every foreign corporation would be considered an agent of a foreign government. The fact that the Parliament actually picks the Commitee members is, arguably, the key fact.]
October 28, 2009, 6:45 amLior says:
The committee that decides on the prizewinner consists of elected officials of Norway, but they are not “acting as such” — they are acting as agents of the Nobel Foundation. In fact, the committee is to be elected by the Storting, but I don’t think that the will specifies that they are to be elected from the Storting.
I think everyone realizes that the award is actually given on behalf of the Alfred Nobel Foundation, a private organization. It is traditionally presented by the chair of the committee, in the presence of the King of Norway, but it is definitely not an award given by the government of Norway. For example, the government of Norway may not determine the amount of the prize, abolish it, or change the definition of the winner.
October 28, 2009, 7:48 ammikeyes says:
Although this may not be germaine now, but when A. Nobel designated the Norwegian Storting to name the committee, it was a subset of Sweden and not a foreign government per se. This would be like the City of New Orleans giving the key to the city to the President. I doubt that Congress would have had to be involved then.
When TR was awarded the Prize in 1904, Norway was still a part of Sweden which was not independent until June of 1905.
October 28, 2009, 7:58 amDavid Nieporent says:
I believe the congressional remedy for the president violating the constitution is impeachment, not lawsuit.
October 28, 2009, 8:06 amDaniel Chapman says:
Not according to Marbury v. Madison…
October 28, 2009, 9:41 amSteve says:
Perhaps they are just waiting for Obama to accept the prize so they can impeach him! Those dastardly Republicans.
October 28, 2009, 9:43 amDaniel Chapman says:
Sorry, I think I skipped over “congressional” when reading your comment. I still think a particular congressman could sue for a writ under the right circumstances, though.
October 28, 2009, 9:48 amJasonF says:
What if, instead of cashing the check, President Obama has it framed and hung on the Oval Office wall? Then it would be a mere decoration, and OK for him to accept, right? What if he has the physical check placed in trust for 181 days (assuming it has some fine print on it that says it is void after 180 days)?
Kidding aside, I would love to see a resolution introduced of the sort proposed by Reps. Brown-Waite, Stearns, and Paul — I’d like to know which Republicans are crazy enough to vote against the President of the United States being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.
October 28, 2009, 10:32 amCan't find a good name says:
I don’t think that the post is correct to suggest that Obama would have to turn over the monetary prize to the government. 5 C.F.R. sec. 2635.204(d) suggests that a government employee may accept a Nobel Prize, including the cash award associated with it, if approved by the applicable agency ethics official (I think that would be the director of the Office of Government Ethics, but I can’t find that right now).
It’s not as though this is completely unprecedented, or even that one has to go back to the era of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson for precedents. Government employees have won Nobel Prizes for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and economics in the last 30 years. If those people got to keep the cash (subject possibly to approval by an ethics official), Obama should be able to do so as well.
October 28, 2009, 10:55 amHans Bader says:
The consent allows Obama to accept it on behalf of the government, but he must TURN IT OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT — not keep it for his own purposes, as he apparently plans to do!
Obama has been quoted as saying that he will do just the contrary: accept the money for himself, and then give it to charity, which is a form of receiving it for himself (income is yours, and is taxable as yours, even if you give it to your favorite charity, under court rulings and tax rulings).
I originally said that Obama’s receipt of the prize money was harmless.
I changed my mind after I learned that he planned to use it for his own purposes (charities that serve his political or other interests), rather than give it to taxpayers.
Here is what I said at my blog:
NOBEL PRIZE HYPOCRISY
Drug companies are forbidden from offering freebies to doctors in some liberal states, like Massachusetts and Vermont, under the theory that doctors' loyalty can be bought simply by giving them free pens and beverages worth a few cents.And the Federal Trade Commission now restricts bloggers from praising books they receive as gifts from publishers, without disclosing the gift, under the theory that bloggers will praise worthless dreck in order to receive it for free.
Yet when President Obama was awarded a far more substantial gift -- a $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize -- by a foreign government, questions about its propriety were ridiculed by some liberal commentators. (Nobel Peace Prize winners are selected by a committee chosen by Norway's parliament. Obama was nominated after less than two weeks in office -- when he had yet to achieve anything -- in order to influence his future conduct in office (to encourage him to pursue a foreign policy more in keeping with world opinion rather than American ideals and interests) and also to reward him for simply not being George Bush).
Indeed, some left-wing commentators, like the Democratic National Committee and Daily Kos, dismissed criticism of the award as unpatriotic, and claimed that such critics were on par with terrorists like the Taliban. (So much for their disingenuous claim during the Bush years that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -- a phrase they falsely attributed to Jefferson, who never said it).
Why the double standard? Are doctors less trustworthy than politicians?
Given the notorious politicization of the Justice Department under Obama, his turning a blind eye to wrongdoing by political allies (such as voter intimidation by the racist, antisemitic Black Panther Party), and his firing of inspector generals who uncover corruption and misuse of federal funds by Obama supporters (as well as the Bush Administration's disgraceful "torture memos"), I would argue that presidents, like politicians in general, are less trustworthy than doctors, and ought to be subject to more scrutiny about the gifts they receive, not less.
Obama has already proven himself willing to take positions designed to cater to an international audience at the expense of civil liberties, such as backing UN proposals to ban hate speech and anti-Islam speech in the name of forging international consensus. Such bans may be popular in Europe, and in Norway's socialist-led parliament (which recently imposed confiscatory taxes on the shipping industry), but they are contrary to America's First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions like R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992). What the international community wants is sometimes at odds with U.S. interests. The UN recently declared Cuba's longtime anti-American dictator Castro a "World Hero." It also successfully lobbied Obama to back a Castro ally and would-be dictator in Honduras, in violation of Honduran law.
The Founding Fathers thought that federal officials like the President were in serious danger of being influenced by foreign gift-givers. That's why they drafted the Constitution to ban federal officials from accepting "any present" from foreign governments without Congressional consent.
Given that Norway is usually a friendly country, Obama's Nobel Prize money may not cause any tangible harm, putting aside any legal issues (although Norway has differed with the U.S. on some major foreign policy issues in the past, like the Vietnam War). But it certainly is hypocritical to turn a blind eye to Obama's lucrative $1.4 million, while obsessing over free pens and beverages being given to doctors, or free books given to bloggers. (Even if Obama gives the $1.4 million to charity, it still won't change matters. A gift is a gift even if it's later given to charity, and most people would be thrilled to have $1.4 million to give to charity).
October 28, 2009, 11:09 amSteve says:
It’s kind of funny the way this post analyzes the spot price of gold, as if Obama might have the medal melted down or perhaps just auction it off on eBay. Also, wow, what a self-discrediting post by Hans Bader.
October 28, 2009, 11:12 amHans Bader says:
My comment above raised concerns about Obama accepting the check that comes with the Nobel Prize — not the medal itself. And it raised concerns about him accepting the check only if he did not turn it over to the government.
It’s perfectly OK for Obama to accept the check on behalf of the U.S. government. But accepting it for himself, even if he gives the money to charity, is a different matter.
October 28, 2009, 11:19 ampc says:
I think Obama is going to get one of those free envelopes from Cash4Gold and send it to them.
October 28, 2009, 11:33 amDave N says:
I am guessing that even if the medal and diploma have to be turned over to the GSA, the GSA will simply safekeep them for a decade or so and then they will be “loaned” to the Obama Presidential Library for a permanent display.
October 28, 2009, 11:43 amTNeloms says:
It does seem silly, but that’s what the statute says. What the statute is trying to get at is that you shouldn’t accept gifts that you would either sell for more than $100 or would have paid more than $100 for. Of course, the value of the gold medal to Obama or to anyone else clearly has very little to do with the price of gold.
October 28, 2009, 11:45 amDennis N says:
Regardless of the Office of Profit or Trust clause, the $1.4 Million prize is a bribe.
A bribe is the payment of something of value to a government official in the hope that they will perform actions favorable to the briber. The Prize was awarded to Obama to encourage him to continue with his policies that the Nobel Committee approves of. Since he essentially has not done anything yet, the Prize is a bribe to encourage him to continue his policies.
Accepting a bribe is certainly an impeachable offense.
October 28, 2009, 12:10 pmArthurKirkland says:
Based on my experience with persons far less famous than Barack Obama, and on some of the reasoning observed here, one could argue that President Obama could be obligated to refrain from accepting a bottle of water — because he could sell the bottle (full, half-full or empty) for more than $100 simply because it had been his. That seems silly to me, not only with respect to the market for celebrity-associated flotsam but also with respect to the legal gymnastics in which some are willing to engage in an effort to discredit or excuse President Obama.
I have not yet seen a dispassionate analysis of the relevant issues — whether the Nobel Prize is associated with a foreign government, whether and how the funds might property directed toward a charity, whether the President should request Congressional consent, etc. I hope someone conducts such an analysis and that President Obama acts properly.
From a political perspective, a wise course might be a Congressional resolution that documents consent and lauds the President for bringing such honor to the United States of America. A unanimous vote would extinguish any legitimate concerns; if any member of Congress took the bait and voted against such a resolution, so much the better (from a purely partisan perspective).
October 28, 2009, 12:14 pmAJK says:
It’s certainly arguable that Congressional approval wouldn’t be required, but what’s the harm in asking? Surely there’s no question about what the result would be. And surely Congress can take a break from passing resolutions honoring Confucius or whatever to wave this one through. It seems like a rather harmless way to honor the commands of Constitution.
I’m also very disappointed to see the Representatives’ letter discussing the “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”…
October 28, 2009, 12:27 pmegd says:
Really, I don’t see the harm in Congressional action to overcome the issue.
Although it would be great for the Republicans to enter an amendment into the bill that allocates funding for the F-22 project, if only to watch Democrats vote against the bill. Or, even better, it passes and we get to watch the President explain why he has to veto his own Nobel Prize.
October 28, 2009, 12:43 pmMark Field says:
I’m not sure whether Sarcastro is posting today as “Dennis N.” or as “Hans Bader”.
October 28, 2009, 1:26 pmCan't find a good name says:
If the three representatives truly wanted Congress to approve Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Prize, then shouldn’t they have introduced a bill to authorize him to receive it, rather than asking him to ask for Congress’s consent?
October 28, 2009, 1:29 pmCan't find a good name says:
Also, does the Norwegian Nobel Committee or its members really have “interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties”? They certainly have preferences as to how President Obama exercises his official duties, but I don’t know how it would affect them personally if, say, Obama either doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan or withdrew them all. Does liking or disliking what the employee does constitute an interest that is substantially affected by his performance of official duties?
October 28, 2009, 1:35 pmDennis N says:
Nope. Posting as myself.
I’m serious. The Prize, given as it was, is an attempt to influence US Foreign policy. It is precisely the sort of thing the FF wrote the Office of Profit or Trust clause to prevent.
We don’t have to argue that the recipient would bend US foreign policy in response to the bribe, only that the bribe was offered.
October 28, 2009, 1:57 pmChris says:
Need a way to bring back the green border, and also a direct link to just the green-border comments.
October 28, 2009, 2:37 pmzuch says:
Prof. Kopel:
Why? If they’d been picked by card draw, would that make them a casino? I’d have thought that the fact of actual agency would be the “key fact”. Are the committee members actually agents of the Norwegian government, doing its bidding? Are they required to follow the wishes of the Norwegian government, or the wishes of the Nobel will and trust?
Cheers,
October 28, 2009, 2:40 pmShelbyC says:
Hold the phone there, chief. If I donate money to a pol hoping they will, say, lower taxes, and they accept, that doesn’t mean I bribed them. They have to agree to do so in exchange for the bribe.
October 28, 2009, 2:44 pmSteve G says:
I’d say even the agreement isn’t the key factor. If a pol goes to a fundraiser and promises X, then a bunch of people supporting X write checks to his campaign, that looks like an agreement, but it’s still not a bribe.
A bribe is an illicit payment to obtain a result. And they’re not limited to governmental officials. If I slip a university president $100 to give me a construction contract on the new dorm, I’ve bribed him. If I donate $1M to have the dorm named after him, that’s not a bribe.
You can argue that the Nobel is an impermissible gift, but it wasn’t a bribe. There was nothing illicit about it. They issued press releases and everything.
October 28, 2009, 5:07 pmFloridan says:
JasonF: “I’d like to know which Republicans are crazy enough to vote against the President of the United States being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.”
I’d guess Michele Bachmann would be at the head of that line.
October 28, 2009, 5:41 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
As others have noted, the prize is awarded by the Nobel Foundation and not by the Norwegian government. True, the selection committee is appointed by that government. But there is no evidence I know of that committee members are acting on the government’s behalf when they make their selection, or that the government instructs or encourages them to vote in a particular way. In fact, the government won’t even know who has been nominated. (The list of nominees is kept secret for 50 years. Nominators can reveal whose names they submitted, but they could be lying and there is no way to verify their claims.) It’s hard to see how it could tell committee members whom to vote for when it doesn’t know who the candidates are.
Committee members may be trying to further their own political views, and they may even be selected because their politics align with those of the Norwegian parliament, but that does not mean their decision is made either by or for Norway. It’s hard to see how the Norwegian government would care one way or the other about many prior winners of the peace prize; that it might care a great deal about this one does not mean it controlled the decision.
Also, fwiw, the cash portion of a Nobel prize is conveyed by wire transfer, not by check. I don’t know if this matters in any real sense, but some of the commenters presume that the payment will be made in the form of a check. Knowing that this is not the case may affect their analyses.
October 28, 2009, 5:54 pmSteve says:
If a pol goes to a fundraiser and promises X, then a bunch of people supporting X write checks to his campaign, that looks like an agreement, but it’s still not a bribe.
The reason it’s not a bribe is that they were under no obligation to write those checks. Similarly, I can donate 1000 bucks to Obama’s reelection fund with a note saying he should support gay marriage; there’s no quid pro quo because he gets to keep the money either way.
October 28, 2009, 6:02 pmRich says:
If the Representative is so concerned, let her introduce a measure to grant consent. There is no constitutional reason he should have to ask.
Also, Dennis N’s argument is just stupid. The Nobel Committee were not paying money and gold for policy. Instead, it was the recognition that they hoped would encourage him to continue implementing the policies they support. If that’s a problem, local bar associations had better start being very careful who they award plaques to.
October 28, 2009, 7:11 pmloki13 says:
What, we don’t get to see Obama holding a giant check? That keeps me from the joy of seeing Dennis N (among others) attempt to show that the name on the check doesn’t match Obama’s Kenyan birtch certificate, or whatever crazy is being peddled today.
October 28, 2009, 7:39 pmMark Field says:
18 USC Sec. 201.
October 28, 2009, 7:43 pmChrisTS says:
Good Grief.
We would not want a sitting U.S. President to be honored by the Nobel Committee if he is not on our party’s side. Really?
October 28, 2009, 8:27 pmSteve G says:
But as illegal payments, bribes don’t create any enforceable obligations. If you don’t follow through, I can’t make you return the money either. The prize money is CLEARLY not a bribe in any way shape or form, but having an actual agreement can’t be a required element to the existence of a bribe. If a judge is offered a briefcase full of cash by someone trying to influence the case and the judge takes the money but just says “I’ll think about it,” the judge took a bribe, even though there was no agreement (and even though the briber couldn’t go and get his money back if the judge ends up rulings against him).
October 28, 2009, 10:19 pmObama can accept Nobel prize « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] saying that President Obama cannot accept the Nobel prize without Congressional authorization. This isn’t true; he already is authorized under existing law, provided he turns the prize over to the [...]
October 29, 2009, 12:04 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Reader: By custom that goes back to the days of chivalry, the arms of the vanquished belong to the victor. So Bush’s receiving Saddam’s pistol is in line with tradition. Arguably, since Bush was CINC, he ‘received’ the pistol when American forces captured it: the generals merely delivered it.
That blurs the distinction between the person of the president and the US government, of course, but the sin, such as it is, is not very great.
As far as Obama and the Nobel is concerned, it’s moot since, even if it is illegal for him to accept it, nothing is going to be done about it if he does.
October 29, 2009, 10:21 amDennis N says:
That’s uncalled for. I’ve been convinced it’s not a bribe, too.
I suspect the weapon was accepted in the name of the US Government and logged in as government property. It may be on permanent loan to the Pres, as similar gifts and trophies are, but I can’t imagine that it was given to the man as personal property.
That is certainly true, and I can’t imagine anyone being politically stupid enough to attempt to censure Him for accepting it.
October 29, 2009, 12:43 pmA different swede says:
The Swedish state does own the medical university that awards the Nobel Prize in Medicine. (It has an affiliated hospital but it is really the university that is involved with the awarding of the prize.)
October 29, 2009, 6:31 pmA president must “obtain Congress’ consent before formally accepting the Nobel Prize.” « Interesting finds says:
[...] Congress already allows it, via statute. Law professor David Kopel researched the issue and posted a detailed analysis on the respected legal blog The Volokh [...]
October 30, 2009, 11:53 amDellDolly says:
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is NOT a representative of the Norwegian government. The people picked to be on the committee are NOT members of the Sorting, the Norwegian legislature. They are representatives of the Nobel Peace Prize, not Norway. So the issue of getting something from a foreign state doesn’t apply. He didn’t get anything from a foreign state or from a representative of the foreign state.
October 30, 2009, 11:30 pmmorrishagerman says:
The head of the FBI was knighted while holding office, will we take it away from him?
November 10, 2009, 11:40 am