Can the president legaly do this? chairman of the U.N. Security Councel...

Sorry Taskr, it seems that people read my comment and thought your OP was about the Nobel Piss Prize. Didn't mean to hijack it.

Yeh, everyone seemd to think this was over the Nobel prize, I guess I should have been more specific in my original post and put it in the body instead of just the thread title.
I'm really bad at this game:/

I haven't even seen this on Fox news yet. I was reading a discussion in another forum on it started by a guy who I consider one of the smartest folks I know on constitutional issues. As far as I can tell, all it would take is for congress to consent to it and the constitutional issue goes away, but we should be doing this the right way.

I only saw it on the Fox News ticker at the bottom of the screen so I don't know if it's been discussed on any of their shows. I didn't realize this was about the security council when I read it.

The funny thing is my first thought when I started reading your thread was this line:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States"

I was going to point out that this means that Obama's appointment of Emperors, or as he calls them "Czars" is clearly unconstitutional as that is a title of nobility.

My first thought was it was about "the Czars" too, not being congressionally approved (or most of them anyway).. I haven't seen much attention to the U.N. Chairman issue.. I've even exactly forgotten when that's supposed to occur.
- Yes, I thing they should do it the constitutional way.. just as should have been done with the 'Czars'.. and also with some other constitutional issues which have come up over the years. I don't like this glossing over and hazing the lines of power and checks and balances.

Actually this doesn't have anything to do with the Nobel Prize...this is about his being apointed to the rotating position of chairman of the security councel...But you do raise a point with the prize money. I understand however he is donating it to charity.

I apologize for my failure

lol, it's all good. Good response anyway.

Actually this doesn't have anything to do with the Nobel Prize...this is about his being apointed to the rotating position of chairman of the security councel, and if it is indeed unconstitutional, it applies to any american citizen, not just someone who holds office.

I have not heard either way yet. I suspect he hasn't but again, I haven't heard either way so it is only a suspician.

Thats where the sticking point seems to be, whether or not the U.N. constituttes a forign entity. I dug this up, which in itself may present a sort of conflict.....
"PROVISIONAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Rule 19:
The President shall preside over the meetings of the Security Council and, under the authority of the Security Council, shall represent it in its capacity as an organ of the United Nations."

On the U.N. neing a foriegn state or entity...a guy I seek constitutional councel with from time to time has this to say....
The creation of the United Nations at the Presidio in San Francisco in 1945, was done by treaty power. It is not part of the United States in any way other than by treaty in the form of an international "Peace" treaty. The Constitution states that treaties are considered part of Constitutional law when they are enacted by an act of Congress and signed by the president.

They are not etched in stone however, and as with all treaties, as was addressed in 1803 by the Supreme Court in the landmark Marbury vs Madison, which states that a law, (by law I mean act of Congress, and no treaty can become law without an Act of Congress), cannot void the Constitution. The Constitution however can void any law including treaties, if that law is repugnant to the Constitution.

When Obama took the position of Chairman of the UN Security Council... he violated Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8 by accepting leadership in an organization that is clearly at odds with the Constitution of the United States.