« The Cost Of Being A Blue Cross Democrat | Main | Finland tops in 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, U.S. is ninth »

October 27, 2009

Advice and consent

Republican Representative Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL 5th District) wants President Obama to seek the consent of Congress before formally accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. She bases her argument on the following portion of Article 1, section 9:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United 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.

She argues that since the Nobel Peace Prize committee is appointed by members of the Norwegian Storting (parliment) that it therefore is "clearly subject to" the above requirement. As evidence that her reading is the correct one, she submits the apparent record of President Theodore Roosevelt.

President Theodore Roosevelt created a committee, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and several Cabinet Secretaries, to hold the money in trust until after he left office. He then sought the consent of Congress to disburse the money to various charities. President Roosevelt rightfully complied with the requirements set forth in the Constitution and acted in a manner becoming of the office of the President of the United States. I trust you will do the same.

Co-signing her letter (pdf warning) to Obama were Reps Cliff Stearns (R-FL 6th District) and Ron Paul (R-TX 14th District).

It's an interesting argument. Not the least of which is because she only cites President Roosevelt. And even that seems a little murky because I don't see anything in her letter indicating that Roosevelt sought the consent of Congress before formally accepting the prize, as she's demanding that Obama do. Roosevelt, according to her own statement, only sought the consent of Congress over how to disburse the money. Which would self-evidently seem to have been after he had formally accepted the Prize... else there would have been no prize money to disburse, no?

Additionally, a number of other federal office holders have been recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. President Wilson in 1919, Vice President Dawes in 1925 and Secretary Kissinger in 1973. The 1986 recipient, Elie Wiesel, was the Chairman of "The President's Commission on the Holocaust" and thus, according to Ms. Brown-Waite's own reasoning viz the Nobel Peace Prize committee, under the same Constitutional requirement. Did any of them seek or receive the consent of Congress? She certainly didn't cite any of them if they did.

All of that said... I find her argument interesting. Mostly because it's an angle that I hadn't ever considered. I'm no Constitutional scholar and for that reason am hesitant to throw down a definite "yea" or "nay" on her claim. But I am deeply skeptical of it's legitimacy.

For one thing, only two of the five members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee are members of the Norwegian government. But more importantly, their mandate comes not from the Norwegian government but from the very strictly interpreted and obeyed provisions of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, as the Organisational Structure page on the Nobel Foundation's website makes very clear.

Let's contrast and compare.

The 1986 recipient, Elie Wiesel, was the Chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Holocaust. A commission created by and premised upon the authority of the President. The Nobel Peace Prize committee, by contrast, was created by and premised upon the last will and testament of a private civilian. Yes the Norwegian parliment cooperates with the stipulations of Mr. Nobel's will and testament with respect to this committee. But that's a fundamentally different thing from a committee created by and premised upon the authority of some component of the Norwegian government.

More evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is not legitimately an arm of the Norwegian government. These are found among the special regulations of the statutes governing the Nobel Foundation:

§ 5 The Nobel Institute is established by and is under the management of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in conformity with the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation.

As opposed to "... in conformity with the Statutes of the Norwegian government." Doesn't sound like part of the sovereign Norwegian government to me.

§ 9 Instructions concerning the election of members of the Nobel Committee shall be approved by the Storting. Proposals for amendments to other provisions of these regulations may be put forward by members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee or by members of the Board of Directors of the Nobel Foundation. Before the Norwegian Nobel Committee makes a decision concerning the proposal, it shall be submitted to the Board of Directors of the Nobel Foundation for an opinion.

Again, this doesn't sound like part of the sovereign Norwegian government to me. Mainly because the ultimate sovereignty of the committee is derived from the Nobel Foundation in neighboring Sweden rather than from the Norwegian Storting.

Now, perhaps our American Constitution would bar our national legislature from cooperating with a mandate from a private citizen's will or with an entity which was created by said private citizen's will, as is the case with the Nobel Foundation in Sweden. But the Norwegian parliment doesn't operate under our Constitution and thus can't reasonably or rationally be held to the standard of it. Whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize committee is legitimately an arm of a foreign State, as Ms. Brown-Waite alleges, turns on Norwegian law, not our own law. And it appears that Norwegian law allows the Storting to cooperate with and be subservient to the statutes of a purely civilian entity based in another country and premised upon the last will and testament of a purely private civilian who wasn't a citizen of Norway.

Posted by Kevin at October 27, 2009 04:06 PM