Posted on 01/20/2009 8:49:03 PM PST by DouglasKC
Have you heard?
Chief Justice Roberts mixed some words around in the Presidential oath that Presidents take upon assuming the office.
The oath should read as follows:
"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."
It seems that Chief Justice Roberts put the word "faithfully" in the wrong place. It was then repeated incorrectly by Mr. Obama.
Should we give Mr. Obama a pass?
I don't think so. And I'll explain why.
Mr. Obama should have known the oath backwards and forwards. He is a constitutional scholar. He must have studied the oath. He surely was briefed on the correct wording.
If you watch the swearing in, it seems certain that Mr. Obama realizes that Chief Justice Roberts has stated the oath wrong. Yet.
Yet Mr. Obama repeats it back, wrong also.
What does this show? We have two possiblities.
The first is that Mr. Obama really didn't know the oath. He never memorized it. He didn't know that the words were mixed up. As stated previously this isn't really plausible. He knew it.
The second option is rather unsettling. Mr. Obama knew the oath. He knew it backward and forward. He knew the right and proper wording specified by the Constitution of the United States. Yet he repeated back the error.
No big deal?
Think about it. This was Mr. Obama's very first act as President. It was a relatively high pressure situation. Around the world there were millions of eyes focused on him. Expectations were high. Nerves, no doubt, were on edge. Yet, when faced with standing up for the right wording, he folded. He agreed with error.
Now maybe he did this to save Chief Justice Roberts from an embarrassing situation. Maybe he did it to prevent himself from appearing "wrong" to the public. Maybe he just wanted to put forth the appearance that everything went smoothly. But are these the attributes we want in a President?
We want the President to be a leader. We want him to stand up for what's right even when everybody else is wrong. We want him to make the decision in the most pressure packed situations. We want him to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Yet at his very first opportunity he decided that getting along at the moment was more important than a constitutional requirement.
It's going to be a long four, or eight, years.
Is it possible that Roberts intentionally phrased it the way he did to throw Obama off?
Another error: didn’t Roberts say “president to the United States” instead of “president of the United States”? There is a big difference between those words, “to” and “of”.
He sorta took the Oaf. That’s all we have for now.
I don’t think either of their flubs matters in the grand scheme of things. Obama is President for 4 years and there is nothing we can do about it. I do however think if people want to make a issue out of Roberts messing up it is only fair to bring up 0bama messing up. I do also think it is funny 0bama started out the colossal failure which was his oath of office.
Did you hear anything about an Obama meeting with SCOTUS? There was something about Alito being the only Justice not present.
Is it true? The person who presented this report suggested that the meeting was extremely unusual and improper.
Frankly, at this point I do not know what to believe. The Bush presidents are globalists. So are Bill Clinton and that anti-Semitic peanut farmer. We have descended into lala land when a Barack Obama could become Preident of what has been the greatest nation in history.
Nobody knows much about this guy beyond what he presented to voters. Those who voted for him are either radical leftists who hate America, or brainless products of public education.
I don’t trust Democrats and I don’t trust Republicans. I don’t trust the Courts or the media. I do trust the feeling I have that I have been hosed.
When Pelosi introduce judge Roberts, I was told she mispronounce her words and said “ oaf of office”. Did any body else hear that?
Obama interrupted him. He’s the first President elect to interrupt the first line during the swearing in ceremony. He’s not a man of details. Lack of character.
Equating Obama with a nervous groom doesn't bolster me with confidence.
How about getting upset over Obama's support of unfettered abortion, or killing babies that actually survived that horrible torture, or his disdain for gun owners, or his wild goody grabbing friends, or the Senate's desire to move ahead with cabinet post approvals without any kind of vetting, or his bringing terrorists from Gitmo to American soil?
Oh, and how do people make that case when they're willing to overlook and excuse other issues? Conservatives start off his Presidency by "excusing" his bad decisions over everyday issues, things that the sheeple really understand, and wonder why they don't agree with us on other issues.
Most people don't understand "Gitmo". Don't have a clue. But they KNOW when somebody screws up speaking in public. Why do you think the Democrats POUND this each and every time when any Republican does it? It's because these types of things resonate with people. They're errors that are easy to point out. Point them out long enough and often enough and you've defined a person.
Oaf of office. LOL
Sounds like there was plenty of fail cake to go around.
Did you hear anything about an Obama meeting with SCOTUS? There was something about Alito being the only Justice not present.
Is it true? The person who presented this report suggested that the meeting was extremely unusual and improper.
Frankly, at this point I do not know what to believe. The Bush presidents are globalists. So are Bill Clinton and that anti-Semitic peanut farmer. We have descended into lala land when a Barack Obama could become Preident of what has been the greatest nation in history.
Nobody knows much about this guy beyond what he presented to voters. Those who voted for him are either radical leftists who hate America, or brainless products of public education.
I don’t trust Democrats and I don’t trust Republicans. I don’t trust the Courts or the media. I do trust the feeling I have that I have been hosed.
I don't know what the meeting was about. It was fairly unusual, but not unprecedented.
I don’t trust Democrats and I don’t trust Republicans. I don’t trust the Courts or the media. I do trust the feeling I have that I have been hosed.
I get the feeling that something isn't right. And I think it's long past the point where the Washington establishment really have the good of the country in mind.
Hmmmm
Someboby gonna file a lawsuit alleging he not really sworn in and therefoe not President?
Might be hard to take to Supreme Court...
Thanks, Newheart. We are of a like mind. Bigger fish to fry...
Watch the tape. Obama blew it. He interrupted Roberts after laughing like a clown right before the official swearing in.
He’s the first and only President elect to interrupt the Chief Justice.
SNL, if they are brave enough, have a gold mine if they choose to spoof Obama’s lack of seriousness and comprehension skills. First he laughed, then he interrupted, then he continued to fumble his way through. Must see tv. Think if this had happened with Bush or Palin? SNL would be all over this material.
Exactly, the lawsuits on 0bama’s citizenship have gone nowhere and the same will happen to this issue in the Supreme Court.
Yes, give him a pass
from what I heard, It was not Obama that flubbed, it sounded more like Obama truied to help, then stopped to let the Chief Justice correct, then a few seconds of awkward silence, then Obama repeated what was said
Didn’t sound to me like it was Obama’s fault at all.
However, it will go down in history as him being part of it. :)
Rev Lowrey is a racist POS
Nope, but it's a reflection on his character and mindset. Rather than doing the right thing he settles for the easy thing.
Obama interrupts Chief Justice Roberts almost immediately. Obama flubbed. Have you watched it? Or just heard about the Obama's oaf? lol
But, did Pelosi take advantage of the lapse?
I swear nobody reads the whole article or else I didn't make my point clear enough. :-)
The point was that he instead of saying the oath correctly DESPITE it being read incorrectly he knowingly chose to repeat the error to avoid confrontation. Not exactly what we want in a President.
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.