Comments on Sultan Knish: Friday Afternoon Roundup - J Street's Anti-Israel ...

Thanks for all the links over the past few months ...

2009-10-23T09:03:51.158-04:00

Thanks for all the links over the past few months (or has it been years?). They were always greatly appreciated.

Shabbat Shalom.

--TNC

the point is whether the award is constitutional o...

2009-10-18T13:17:54.058-04:00

the point is whether the award is constitutional or not, not how people see the article

you're welcome:)

2009-10-18T13:06:56.400-04:00

you're welcome:)

"the precedents of wilson and roosevelt do not act...

2009-10-18T11:09:55.767-04:00

"the precedents of wilson and roosevelt do not actually answer the question of whether accepting the award is constitutional or not"

This completely misses the point. Right now there IS no question, except in the minds of the writers of that WP article and perhaps a handful of others. To someone who is not an expert on constitutional law, the precedent of Roosevelt and Wilson, particularly the way it is brought up and dismissed in that article, raises the suspicion that the article is just potboiler propaganda.

thank you

2009-10-18T02:00:06.915-04:00

thank you

Giving the award (actually the cash) to a presiden...

2009-10-18T01:35:21.947-04:00

Giving the award (actually the cash) to a president still in office is improper. It could also be seen as a bribe. Or at the very least could give the illusion that the president can be bought. That illusion of impropriety is just as damaging to the office as actual impropriety imho.

******

I loved your Parsha for this week:) Especially about Noah being unable to control the evil that had gotten out of control.

I tried to leave a comment but had trouble with Google signing in.

the precedents of wilson and roosevelt do not actu...

2009-10-17T19:27:14.196-04:00

the precedents of wilson and roosevelt do not actually answer the question of whether accepting the award is constitutional or not

The WP article on the constitutionality of Obama's...

2009-10-16T18:54:58.461-04:00

The WP article on the constitutionality of Obama's accepting the Nobel brings up the objection that there is a precedent in Roosevelt and Wilson. But this is dismissed merely because in the case of Roosevelt and Wilson the prize was given "to honor their past actions." Yet that has nothing to do with the issue of constitutionality (the quoted passage from the constitution says nothing about the intent behind the emolument). The question remains: if a sitting President's accepting of the award is unconstitutional, then why has it happened before? Did the constitution change? Or was the award unconstitutional in the case of Roosevelt and Wilson again although this hasn't apparently been argued until now? The article pretends that this does not cast serious doubt on its main contention.