New world economic order takes shape at G20 [edited]

[BmanMcfly]

SNAP ANALYSIS: New world economic order takes shape at G20 | Reuters

By Lesley Wroughton

PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - The Group of 20 is set to become the premier coordinating body on global economic issues, reflecting a new world economic order in which emerging market countries like China are much more relevant, according to a draft communique.

New World Order: Obama to Widen G-20's Role | NBC Miami

New World Order: Obama to Widen G-20's Role
President Obama is pushing to make the Group of 20 nations the leading forum for global economic cooperation, where policies could be subjected to a form of "peer review," The Wall Street Journal reported. The move, set to be announced today in Pittsburgh, would give major emerging economies China, Brazil and India more power in future economic discussions by having the G-20 take on roles previously played by the Group of 8. The G-8 would continue to meet separately on security issues, according to reports.

G20 to police new world economic order - Telegraph

G20 to police new world economic order

The Group of 20 rich and developing countries is to take on a new role as caretaker of the global economy, giving rising stars such as China and India more say in world affairs.

The point being that you can't really deny these things anymore...

So, not only would I like comment on these stories or any other one in particular you might have read in your hometown news, or seen on the news...

What does that mean if 'this topic' must be acceptable in the current affairs discussion rather then the 'conspiracy theory' section... also I would like to ask about what are the implications of such a 'forced' change??? Will people still deny this exists? Does that mean that the 'conspiracy theorists' might not have been talking as much nonsense as many of you gave them, or just a 'fluke'??

Now, there is one more GRAVE ISSUE that has been brought to my attention, and need clarification that this does NOT violate Article 1, Section IX : 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.

Was Obama given congressional consent for :
Barack Obama is 'President of the world' - CNN.com

Barack Obama is 'President of the world'
Around the world, media reaction to the Democrats' victory has poured in, as newspapers and broadcasters reflect on the Barack Obama campaign and the global impact his win will have.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfQYv61SilI"]YouTube - Obama Chairs UN Security Council on Nuclear Disarmament, Pt1[/ame]

So, can someone explain why this is not an impeachable offense??

Thanks for anyone that can clarify this... cause in my perspective, this is NOT GOOD. Since, from what I hear typically when it's the US's turn to chair the council they send an embassador for the very reason that it's unconstitutional...

I tried to stick strictly within the rules, but figured this would be preferable then a dozen or so similarly named threads, and I wanted to get the point across that it's multiple simultaneous articles...even some from afrika popped up... I'm sorry.

 

[RightinNYC]

If I were president, I would periodically throw in references to things like a "new world order" just to keep the tinfoilers on their toes.

To answer your question: I have no idea what you think is impeachable, but I can assure you that it's not.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: "As a new world economic order takes shape" (Reuters)

The latest G-20 summit offers additional anecdotal evidence that the economic crisis was the seminal event of the 21st century--at least so far--in shaping the continuing evolution of world affairs. The G-20 will be a forum in which the participant nations, all sovereign states, will coordinate their efforts concerning common interests and goals. It will not eliminate state sovereignty or seriously undermine it.

The "peer review" will mainly entail the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) issuing its opinion on the nations' progress toward regulatory reforms. At this point, the FSB will merely issue opinions. It will not be able to impose decisions, much less regulatory reforms.

The G-20's statement can be found at: Leaders' Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit

 

[BmanMcfly]

If I were president, I would periodically throw in references to things like a "new world order" just to keep the tinfoilers on their toes.

To answer your question: I have no idea what you think is impeachable, but I can assure you that it's not.

As I quoted earlier Article 1, Section 9 of the US constitution :

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.

So, Obama IS holding office, AND he has a new TITLE... that is forbidden without congressional approuval. His ACCEPTANCE of the title revokes his previous pledge to the constitution, therefore impeachable.

NOW... if you're a half-decent admin you'll move this, if not to the BN section the the political discussion section since I've got 4 MSM news sources in there, and it's politically relevant.

 

[donsutherland1]

So, can someone explain why this is not an impeachable offense??

The Ambassador to the UN is an officer of the U.S. who is appointed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution precludes the President, also a civil officer of the U.S., from performing the duties of the Ambassador to the UN. Otherwise, many Presidents who got involved in details/functions normally delegated to other officers e.g., directly participating in negotiations or mediation between states, a role typically played by the Secretary of State, would have committed impeachable offenses.

In chairing the Security Council meeting President Obama accepted no new titles. He merely performed a function. Performance of that function is not precluded by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The Ambassador to the UN is an officer of the U.S. who is appointed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution precludes the President, also a civil officer of the U.S., from performing the duties of the Ambassador to the UN. Otherwise, many Presidents who got involved in details/functions normally delegated to other officers e.g., directly participating in negotiations or mediation between states, a role typically played by the Secretary of State, would have committed impeachable offenses.

In chairing the Security Council meeting President Obama accepted no new titles. He merely performed a function. Performance of that function is not precluded by the U.S. Constitution.

The bolded part shows me that he can take the chair, but must be cautious of the items discussed or he may find himself discussing these issues that would lead to an offense against the constitution.

In other words, he is once again keeping himself in the grey area of the law... thankfully CNN's designation of Obama being 'president of the world' is not his official title... that would be a scary thought indeed.