Posted on 03/16/2009 4:39:15 AM PDT by wombtotomb
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/EntityDisplay.php?Entity=KofBE
And lets not forget those Knights of Malta
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/EntityDisplay.php?Entity=KofMalta
Bildenberg Organization(sp?), Tri lateral Group
:) Ima girl brotha, and I guess I am just stuck in the past!
It’s the Democratic Congress. And it’s Teddy Kennedy. Before he receives it Congress will give him permission.
But it’s no biggie. Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, MacArthur, and Reagan were all given British knighthoods. So don’t feel this is some new, unprecedented event.
Kennedy’s is only an honorary “title.” He gets no land, no political power, can’t even legally (according to British law) call himself “sir” anything. I don’t see this as a violation, really.
Ted Kennedy’s Knighthood is as illegitimate as Zero’s Presidency and Hillary’s appointment to Secretary of Foggy Bottom. They’re all impostors.
I sure didn’t think that, I was just under the impression that it should not be done until they were no longer holding office, not prior to them retiring/leaving office. Not sure when the others received these honorary knighthoods, but I think the constitution is clear, honorary or not, that while holding office they should not receive it. Many who got it do deserve the honor, so that is not the dispute.
At this stage in his life, do you think Congress is going to deny him anything?
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
The word “title is mentioned in the article 1 section 9 clause. It is copied below. Please note the words “of ANY kind WHATEVER” in specific when referencing the word “title”. This I would take to mean even honorary, while holding office.
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.
That is the saddest part of all. Probably not.
The language is even stronger in the Articles of Confederation but I agree, at this point Congress wouldn’t deny Ted anything.
Would this be Englands way of subtly subverting the constitution of the US, by offering these things to our elected officials knowing they cannot accept, according to our constitution, but knowing we are unable to refuse due to our relationship with England?
Violating the constitution seems to happen in babysteps, much as subverting thought about abortion,gay marriage, et al did.I know I am wondering more and more.....
The Constitution is an obsolete document and should not be taken seriously any more.
either you forgot your sarc tag, or I’m about to pwn you :)
I missed your tagline LOL
... must HAVE lowered the standards.
I have an employee ; he and I were discussing what will happen to society when the government can not pay their debts, ie social secutrity, welfare etc.... I propose their will be great civil unrest when the lazy masses no longer get free money and food; the next logical step will be martial law.
My employee said “this is America, the cosntitution protects us from that” naive young man, our “leaders” have no use for that document.
Honorary Knighthoods are akin to being given the key to a city. Or like when the Boy Scouts will give someone an Honorary Membership.
It just means they think you are a really nifty Dude or dudette, and you can go into the club house but you don't have any other privileges.
Yet George Washington accepted gifts from foreign ambassadors, in the name of the people of the United States, as have all successors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.