Washington Post - Are Obama's Actions Constitutional?

Quoting Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham at The Washington Post
(Emphasis mine & I inserted the links):

“People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: ‘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.’…

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions…

Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament…

This is at least the second time that Obama has run afoul of the emolument clause. On June 3, 2009, the day before he gave his speech in Cairo on relations with the Muslim world, he accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, Saudi Arabia's highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah.”

Click the image & read the rest:

H/T: Pundit & Pundette
Why would anybody be surprised at Obama disrespecting our Constitution?

After all, Obama seems to regard our Constitution as little more than a pesky impediment standing in the way of his Marxist agenda to redistribute the wealth (worldwide).

Click here for more on Obama.