Dumbassery, defined:

[theweaselking]

Washington Post writers announce own illiteracy, can't tell "King, Prince or foreign State" apart from "committee made up of foreigners"

Also: When a similar issue was addressed before?



He kept the dog.

Comments

[dolston.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

"The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state."

That's not really the same as just a "committee made up of foreigners". Also, Nixon is perhaps not the best example of a pinnacle of ethics.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Committee chosen by the parliament of Norway != the state of Norway.

And the point of including Nixon is that he's the poster child for the current Republican party and the person they most strive to imitate - if their idol did it, they're really hard-pressed to claim that anyone else doing it is wrong.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

"President Clinton's Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns." This opinion went on to say that the emolument clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities."

Seriously, man, read the article all the way through.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I read it. And? The rule is stupid, the OLC's argument in 1993 is stupid, and even if they weren't stupid, *the Nobel committee is not an instrument of Norway's government*

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

I agree the rule is stupid, and I think that as an accolade rather than a position or material prize, the Nobel prize doesn't fall under it. But the OLC's argument makes perfect sense - governments in and of themselves rarely do that sort of thing, whereas offices or bodies under that government, like the military, frequently do.

And where the Nobel committee is chosen by the Norwegian Parliament out of current and former members of the Norwegian Parliament to provide a representative sample of the current political makeup of the Norwegian Parliament, and until 1977 was named the "Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament", it's as much an instrument of Norway's government as FEMA or the Post Office are of the US's.

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Actually standing norwegian MPs can't be members of the committee.

But otherwise you defence of the notion that a nobel peace prize is equivalent enough to a dukedom as far as anyone should care is...mindbogglingly stupid.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure I said that a Nobel Peace Prize isn't equivalent to a dukedom, and in fact is by its nature different enough from what the Constitution proscribes that the rule shouldn't bar it.

Members of congressional bodies generally are allowed to have other, non-governmental positions. You can be in Congress and also own a restaurant, or be on the board of a corporation. Oddly, though, you can't be in Congress and be, say, the Secretary of State. It's almost like there would be problems with people holding positions in two government instruments at once.

[errolwi.livejournal.com]

Washington Post writers announce own illiteracy, can't tell "King, Prince or foreign State" apart from "committee made up of foreigners"

Sorry, but this is a strange way to spin it when they make a clear case why they consider the committee is acting on behalf of a foreign state. You may or may not consider it a correct argument, but they have clearly read and understood what the words say.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

A major plot point here is that the Nobel committee is, as the name implies, not an instrument of the Norwegian government but of a dead white man, Alfred Nobel, a Swedish capitalist. The idea of using the Norwegian government to appoint the committee is more about finding a mostly harmless institution that would still be around 100 years later and not take the money for itself.

[ikkarus01.livejournal.com]

To me, it looks like their entire argument falls to pieces in paragraph 3. They basically say it was perfectly ok when Wilson and Roosevelt got the prize because it was in honor of "past actions". So this whole thing just sounds like a new, backhanded way of tossing out the same tired, whiny "but he hasn't done anything to deserve it!" cryfest.

It's like birther babble.
"We don't want him to be President, so we'll claim it's unconstitutional."
"We don't want him to get the Nobel, so we'll claim it's unconstitutional."