Brown-Waite to Obama: Don't pick up that Peace Prize so fast

WASHINGTON — While many people were wondering what President Barack Obama did to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite began researching another question: Can he even accept the award?

Yes, she concluded, but only if he asks her for permission. Well, her and the rest of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

So on Monday the Brooksville Republican sent a letter to Obama congratulating him, but requesting that he fulfill a "constitutional obligation to obtain Congress' consent."

The letter, co-signed by Republican Reps. Cliff Stearns of Ocala and Ron Paul of Texas, sets off debate about an obscure provision of the U.S. Constitution that they say restricts a president from accepting a gift from a foreign entity.

"Let's say you had a nonprofit in the Mideast that gave him a large sum of money, would we want that?" Stearns said. "The president should be careful about accepting gifts while in office."

But two legal experts on Tuesday deemed the argument a "stretch" and a Democratic colleague from Florida suggested the trio had come "unglued."

"They've obviously lost control of their faculties, lost their mind and are so consumed by despair they are in the minority (party) that there is no depth they will not sink to," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston.

Brown-Waite insists she simply wants to follow correct procedure. "We need to abide by the Constitution," she said.

The letter reads: "Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, clearly states: '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.'

"As the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, the Storting, the prize is clearly subject to the requirements set forth in Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution. Obtaining permission from Congress should be straightforward."

Obama, who was himself taken aback by the news that he won the honor, was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Nobel committee said. Obama said he would donate the $1.4 million prize money to charity.

Brown-Waite said she got the idea from an aide, who read something on a blog right after the announcement. She said Obama could benefit even if he donates the money to charity, suggesting he could get a $500,000 tax write-off.

Her letter cites the Nobel Peace Prize given to another sitting president, Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, and suggests he "rightfully" complied in asking Congress for the ability to dispense the prize money to charity.

But news articles from the time say nothing about him relying on the clause she references. Roosevelt initially wanted to set aside the $37,127 for an "Industrial Peace Committee" and Congress created a commission to receive the money, according to a story in the New York Times.

Nothing ever came of it so years later, Roosevelt asked that Congress direct the money toward war relief.

Equally muddy is the constitutional wording itself, of which there was no obvious interpretation Tuesday on how it would apply to Obama.

Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School, said a quick review suggested there are several reasons to reject Brown-Waite's argument.

"First, the Nobel committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, but it appears to be a stretch to call the committee a 'foreign state,' " she said.

The Nobel Foundation itself is a private institution.

"Second there are several other 'persons holding any office' in the United States who have won the Nobel and who, as far as I am aware, did not receive the consent of Congress before accepting the prize."

Joe Little, a constitutional law expert at the University of Florida, agreed. "It's a real stretch."

Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.