Posted on 01/21/2009 10:07:34 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican
First one may or may not be true, but, if true, then he can’t be president.
Second one is probably true, but it would not disqualify him from the presidency.
Third one would only incapacitate him from performing the duties of president, not prohibit him from becoming president, and in any event would be easy to fix (by taking the oath again).
I find it hard to believe no other president in history has slipped up repeating the oath. Is this really what we’ve been reduced to?
No the presiding judge reads out the oath and the President-Elect repeats it. Thus IMHO “so help me God” is indeed part of the traditional oath.
However the Constitution differs I’m afraid.
So who’s right?
It doesn't matter that much to me. What matters most to me is that under stress Obama repeated what he knew to be an erroneous oath of office. Instead of doing it right despite what Roberts said Obama made a decision to compromise and say it wrong. It's indicative of his mindset and how he will react under stress.
The oath in the Constitution doesn’t include the person’s name, either. It doesn’t ruin the oath to add the person’s name, nor to add “so help me God” at the end (which every president since Washington has done). All I’m saying is that the Constitution requires presidents to take a particular oath, and flipping around its words is not taking the prescribed oath.
LOL but adding to it is O.K.? You see what a slippery slope and a pretty dumb one this actually is.
Oh look Obama just bailed out x company with our tax dollars....let’s all argue about that oath again.
Way to become really irrelevant.
If that’s the case, then there’s no problem. That’s exactly what I was suggesting that he do.
I don’t think I’m acting like a moonbat, I’m merely saying that he should take the oath again. According to some posters, he already did.
You got it all wrong. I want Obama to retake the oath now (assuming that he hasn’t already done so) precisely so that we don’t have to waste time arguing about it whenever he issues an executive order bailing out Company X with our tax dollars.
Yeah, that'll fly.
Oh, no, wait, it won't, no power ring.
didn’t mean to imply that you were a moonbat... I just don’t think this item is worth any time or outrage. there will be plenty of real issues to argue.
That's a fact!
I note "everybody" is blaming Chief Justice Roberts for "flubbing" the Oath. But then, among other things, Chief Justice Roberts recited the (contentious) "So help me God" part inflected as a question. As in: "So help you God???"
If I were a novelist (which I'm not), and needed a pregnant theme for a Washington pot-boiler, I could have a field-day with this....
One plot line that would need to be considered is that Chief Justice Roberts (the fictional character would need a different name) knew exactly what he was doing. And among other things, rather ironically saved BHO (the fictional character would need a different name) from committing the felonious act of perjury in the process....
Thanks for the excellent, informative post, AuH2ORepublican!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obama Took the Oath a Second Time [Byron York]
As for the messed-up oath at the inauguration yesterday, some observers said that right-wing nuts would be hinting darkly that Obama wasn't really president because he had not taken the constitutionally-mandated oath as written. Now, it turns out that reasonable people believed there was a potential problem and Obama did, in fact, take the oath a second time. From White House counsel Greg Craig:
We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time.
UPDATE: The AP reports that Roberts re-administered the oath to Obama at the White House this evening, in the presence of some reporters but with no press cameras in the room. (There was, apparently, a White House photographer there to record the event.) It all went smoothly.
Meanwhile, in the span of a few minutes, I've gotten a number of emails informing me that Obama only took a second oath to head off criticism from people like…me. "Reasonable people believed that a—holes like you and your ilk would make the oath an issue and out of an abundance of caution, to head off a—holes like you, they re-did it," wrote one correspondent.
Think what you like. But this is the relevant part of the Constitution, Article II, Section 1:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What is it about "shall take the following oath" that is so unclear? The presidential oath has been administered nearly 60 times in American history. It has been messed up and repeated before. What was so crazy about doing it this time?
01/21 08:10 PM
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWNmNDE3YjVhMjVjYWQzNWM5MmM0MjExMDcyYzE0MGM=
Oh your blog is back.
They don’t care about the constitution of course but it is clear. And sure it’s an technicality but it is the law.
As I understand it he was President at noon on the 20th but legally he shouldn’t have been able to exercise his powers.
Technically I guess he’s have to redo all his official acts like Cabinet nominations that he made before taking the oath properly. Surely this will not happen.
Hillary is not Sec of State!
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.