Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Ted Kennedy to Be Knighted … But

By

(Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.)

WBUR reports:

Kennedy To Be Knighted In Britain

By Associated Press

LONDON – March 04, 2009 – He won’t be allowed to call himself Sir Ted, but Britain is awarding an honorary knighthood to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy.

But the Constitution begs to differ.

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.

Where does this leave us? I’m all for paying tribute to Ted, but the Constitution seems pretty clear here.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Reagan, GHWB, and Guiliani all had honorary knighthoods as well.  Right in your pull quote, it says he won’t officially be “Sir Ted”, which implies that no title of nobility is being conferred.

      • Being the Queen is honorary at this point in history.

        <

        p>But there’s honorary and there’s honorary.  Ted will not be swearing allegiance to the British Monarch, so he won’t get to use the title.

      • But all honorific.  Ted is just honorary:  He’s getting the pretend degree presented to the commencement speaker, not an earned diploma.

        • But I still find this to be hairsplitting, when the language of the Constitution is unambiguous.

          <

          p>I think he should reconsider accepting, if he hasn’t already said yes.

  3. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:  
    it isn’t being granted by the US
  4. And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept etc etc
    have you considered that congress will give consent, or that he’ll accept it after resignation?  somehow i don’t think anyone would be under any illusion that ted would start acting as a secret agent of the queen, now that she’s turned his head with promise of a knighthood.  

    5. <

    p>personally, i am delighted that she chooses to honor him in this way – in the highest way she can as a living representative of the nation.

  5. The United States isn’t conferring knighthood; the relevant clause is therefore:

    <

    p>

    …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.

    <

    p>But is Kennedy a “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States}”?  Well, he is a Senator, right?  Is Seantor an “Office of Profit or Trust”

    <

    p>See:

    <

    p>Article II, Section 1

    <

    p>

    …no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    <

    p>That doesn’t make much sense unless Senator and Office of rust or Profit are different things.

    <

    p>Article I, Section

    <

    p>

    …o Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

    <

    p>Well this isn’t “Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”; it is just “Office under the United States” but again doesn’t make sense unless Senator isn’t one.

    • Same source

      <

      p>

      Section 9 – Limits on Congress

      The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

      The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

      No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

      (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

      No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

      No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

      No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

      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.

      • As noted above, other Americans have been knighted, but the United States does not acknowledge the use of “Sir”.  It seems that Kennedy is not getting what the framers would consider any of the four prohibited items:

        <

        p>Present – He is not receiving any money or anything of monetary value.

        <

        p>Emolument – He is not receiving any salaried position.

        <

        p>Office – He is not being commissioned to perform any duties for the UK.

        <

        p>Title – A knighthood is not considered a title; he is not being created duke, earl, marquis, etc.

        <

        p>My question is, which order is he being inducted into.

Archives