All Hail Chairman Obama!

Add another historic ‘first’ to Barack Obama’s presidency … but is it constitutional?

This week, Barack Obama becomes the first president of the United States to chair the United Nations 15-member Security Council. On the docket for Chairman Obama? Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, peacekeeping, climate change, and a possible meeting between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

A report from CBS News stated that Obama “is expected to be received with open arms by a diplomatic corps, which sees him as an agent of change in U.S. policy from confrontation to negotiation,” and noted that he may even receive a standing ovation from the 120 foreign heads of state in attendance.

Golly. Good thing the president doesn’t have an ego to pump up.

Quite honestly, I expect the week’s events at the U.N. to mirror previous such events — a dash of America-bashing, a dollop of anti-Semitism, and a sprig of socialism. The question I have, however, is whether Obama’s position as Security Council chair is constitutional.

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.

For those who don’t recognize it, that’s the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution, found in Article I, Section 9, and designed specifically to protect our republic against any foreign influence.

Admittedly, its pertinence here may be a bit of a stretch, as the clause was originally drafted into the Constitution out of an abundance of caution with regard to the commonplace practice attributed to foreign heads of state and monarchs at the time of presenting gifts to visiting American dignitaries. For example, Benjamin Franklin was showered with art and other gifts by Louis XVI while serving as minister plenipotentiary in France, John Adams was presented with various celebratory documents while in England, and John Jay was actually given an entire living, breathing horse while in Spain. To this day, the Emoluments Clause is at the heart of congressional stalwarts such as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which permits elected officials to accept gifts from foreign states and officials on certain occasions.

Still, the inherent reasoning behind the clause remains the same. Alexander Hamilton wrote, in Federalist No. 22, that among the many advantages of a republican form of government like that installed in the fledgling United States of America, one of the chief weaknesses “is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

Quite honestly, I’ve been a longtime advocate of extracting the entire United Nations complex from New York City. Gone are the days of true coalitions. When tragedy strikes in the form of a tsunami or ethnic cleansing, the world already looks to the United States for intervention and help (even if they hate us for it). The United Nations has lost its relevance, and has instead become a hotbed for corruption, hypocrisy and elitism. To paraphrase what I once overheard someone say in a smoky Bronx drinking establishment following Game Seven of the 2004 National League Championship Series, the U.N. has become nothing short of an auction block where fiery, anti-American dictators can auction off their votes to the highest bidder.

President Barack Obama’s involvement as chair of the U.N. Security Council is everything that our founders did not want from a public official, nonetheless a president of the United States. Those men gave everything so that we could be free, so that we could be removed from the corrupting influence of oppressive foreign powers — and now, not only do we welcome them with open arms, but our president has decided to lead the group in a big, globalist rendition of John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

Would an Emoluments Clause argument hold muster? I don’t know. But either way, regardless of whether Chairman Obama’s new role is constitutional or not, I certainly don’t like it. And I doubt our founders would like it, either.



  1. Gail B says:

    So, what can we do about it? We need your advice here, Jeff.


    He forgets our Founders, as he Flounders.

  3. Rix says:

    Constitution, what Constitution? Why should the guy who has violated so many of its clauses be concerned with ignoring another one if it gives him a chance to appear on TV – and with a standing ovation from his Muslim brothers, no less?

    I'd say we are WAY past impeachment stage. Jeff, I know how much you hate the idea of subjecting the country to violence, but that country you used to love does not exist anymore. And if you need examples of what a Republic can sour into through popular election, just open a history book – you know which chapter to look for, right?


    Off topic, BOYCOTT Bank of America, refusing American flags to be placed along their sidewalk for a young soldiers funeral procession.

  5. COUP D'ETAT says:

    Rix is right.

    verification word: marines
    Damn it, "Let's Roll"

  6. Jack says:

    Jeff, you raise a moot point. We know now that, to Obama and his crew, the U.S, Constitution is nothing but a worthless scrap of paper on which to wipe their feet whenever it suits their purpose.

    Oh my, there I go with another racist statement.

  7. Anonymous says:

    There was a comment questioning this here:
    and Leo mentioned that he'd have to look into it!!

  8. Old as Dirt says:

    Newsflash, but no surprise, man that has been in the Senate since 1 9 5 8 takes a fall this morning. Gee, Byrd, think you might ought to consider retiring??????

  9. Rick Morrow says:



  10. CalifGirlInMaine says:

    I don't like it, I don't think it's proper, and I agree that the Founders would oppose it. However, I'm afraid there's nothing we can do beyond protest, because of 6 words in the Emoluments clause — "without the consent of Congress." I feel quite sure the current Congress would approve and see nothing wrong with Obama serving as chair of the Security Council.

    Now, if Congress is not asked/does not give consent beforehand, could Obama be impeached or whatever for violating that clause? Perhaps, but again, who's going to do it?

    We can contact our Senators and Representatives and express our concerns, and we can protest (how about a spontaneous gathering near the UN with the emoluments clause printed on signs, and other appropriate sentiments?).

  11. whats_up says:


    Correct me if I am wrong but doesnt Article 1 refer to Congress and not the Presidency, wouldnt that restriction be found in Article 2?

  12. Still a Patriot says:

    Hi Jeff -

    I don't like it either – but he doesn't care what we like. He is on his way to be King of the New World Order – Constitution be damned.

    People are waking up, hopefully not too late. There were 15,000 patriots at a Constitution Day Rally in Milwaukee on Saturday. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal actually covered the event without degrading them. Another peaceful, well organized event by Americans For Prosperity which now has 40,000members in the WI chapter.

    This is what Mike Tate, the WI Democratic Party Chairman had to say recently about the protestors:
    "These are extremist elements pulling together, distinct vocal minorities that frankly don't believe in this country," Tate said. "They don't want to see more people have access to quality affordable health care; they don't want clean air and water. They fundamentally don't understand how the American government, economy and capitalism work."

    I think that he & his cohorts are in for a rude awakening.


  13. Mick says:

    It's funny how you talk about protecting the office of POTUS from Foreign influence, yet you say nothing about the fact that Obama was born a Dual Citizen (British) due to his father being an unnaturalized Kenyan Citizen (and not even even a US resident) at the time Obama 2 was born. Dual citizens cannot possibly be Natural Born Citizens. What kind of lawyer are you? There is a genuine legal issue that cuts to the core of the man that you whine about day after day, yet you are oblivious to it, or scared to use it against him.

  14. Dee says:

    He's done such a great job keeping the US secure and safe, I'm sure he'll keep the world secure and safe(I'm being facitious of course).
    We will all live happily ever after.

  15. whats_up says:

    Mick said..

    Dual citizens cannot possibly be Natural Born Citizens.

    According to US Code Obama is not a "dual citizen". Laws on British citizenship dont matter since they arent recognized by the United States, the only thing that determines NBC status is the US Code, and the is very clear on who and who cant be NBC.

  16. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    What's Up –

    You're right about the distinction between Articles I and II. The issue here, though, is the congressional consent required; that's where it fits into Article I. The office in question, whether it be president or an ambassador, doesn't matter.

    At least that's the way I see it.

    Good question, though.


  17. Patrick Henry says:

    This is so sad, it is no longer comical. Patriots rise up.

  18. Lilly says:

    Thank you Jeff for pointing this out and your take on it. I was curious as to the UN part of it to, so glad you covered that as well.
    This is the part that has me REALLY worried… Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. What was BO's college thesis again? Oh yeah, it's still under lock and key.

  19. CHEECH says:

    In that photo, is Barry preparing some roach paper out of our beloved Constitution?

  20. Mick says:

    To What's up,
    You are absolutely wrong. First of all US code says NOTHING about who is a Natural Born citizen, only refers to Citizens. Natural Born citizen is the requirement for POTUS. secondly Article 1 (section 10 clause 8) cites law of nations which is common between nations where nations abide by each other's citizenship laws. This is also upheld, as Jeff should know, by Perkins v. Elg (1929). Natural Born citizen = those born in the US of 2 Citizen parents. It is a National Security measure designed to restrict foreign influence upon the office of POTUS and VP. Senators and congressmen can be Citizens, Pres. and VP must be Natural Born Citizens.

  21. Mick says:
  22. Ian Thorpe says:

    I don't know whether you are right about the unconsitutional nature of Barry's Security Council Jeff but I'm pretty sure the Consitution states very clearly the united States would never have a King.

    Shouldn't the enforcement of that clause be a priority?

  23. Anonymous says:

    Obama/Soetoro can do anything he wishes because We The People have no "standing".

  24. Anonymous says:

    "without the Consent of the Congress" – that's what this argument hinges on. Contact your reps and ask them for the proof that Congress has consented to this.

  25. Thomas says:

    Its a step down for America , the world and if you can believe it the United Nations itself. He cannot have two jobs as US president;he was elected to do one job only and now makes a fool of himself by taking a lesser appointment. He has demoted himself. Any nation that cares to can now ridicule the fool that he is doing a subordinates work and getting nothing done at either position is a waste of time. Congress must demand he get himself back in the white house and stay there. He is out of line and broken all protocols.

  26. Colin says:

    I don't want to rain on your parade but I belive the correct phrase is "Obamma to chair UN security…"

    This means to lead the meeting, no title confered.

    Sorr, back to the Obama rants

  27. Thomas says:

    Chairman is a tittle. He has now called a meeting of a security council used for emergencies to which there is only a veto power. The world does not work for Obama. Obama works for the US and cannot take up duties at the UN. somingu

  28. Mick says:

Speak Your Mind