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.
Right I think it is 11 of the last 12 Presidents said “I _________________ do solemnly swear.” The one who didn’t was Johnson and the oath wasn’t given by the Chief Justice. 0bama messes that part up and everyone wants to about what Robert’s messed up and not what part 0bama messed up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA
I find the concept of ‘better than that’ to be askew. Criticism of Obama is viewed as something less than. Less than what? Honesty?
‘Faint heart never won fair lady’ and ‘wimpiness never won election’/
Were the words or the meaning of the oath changed?
No. The order of the words was changed.
Does "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" have more meaning or any different meaning than "To the flag of the United States of America, I pledge allegiance"?
If you want to be ultra-picky about it, the phrase "so help me God" is NOT in the Constitution. Does that make all those oaths taken by all those Presidents that said "so help me God" as part of their oath "wrong"?
Obama did not publicly humiliate the conservative Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on a live, worldwide TV audience of hundreds of millions and, frankly, IMHO, that showed class.
If we are going to criticize Obama, it should be for serious issues. To the rest of the country outside of our FR echo chamber, criticizing Obama for switching the order of the words without, in any way, changing the meaning, scores points for Obama and makes us look petty.
I'm perplexed. Obama screws up and people are totally willing not only to give him a pass, but to put all blame on a conservative justice. Who needs liberal propaganda with conservatives doing their work for them?
Their chickens have come home to roost...and Hussein will have no respite, none at all.
Sorry...Roberts fault entirely .
If anyone was nervous and flubbed it , it was Mr. SCOTUS
No.
The Bible tells us to render honor to whom honor is due, and to pray for our leaders.
To sink to that level, would make it clear to the young Communists that this is how it is.
It is not.
You are better than this, and so am I.
I will pray for President Obama, as I am charged to do in the New Testament.
This country was special when the Bible came first. Now, we are reaping what we have sown in error.
I’ve joked that “Is dissent still patriotic?”. I’ll stop.
No that shows that he's willing to compromise to get along. That means he's ready to sell out what was agreed upon and expected to look good. That means he's willing to violate the oath of office to not cause friction. Do you think that in a REAL pressure situation that he's going to all of a sudden change his spots?
And to top it all off you're willing to overlook his screwup and blame it on a conservative and make the case that he's being magnanimous?
If we are going to criticize Obama, it should be for serious issues. To the rest of the country outside of our FR echo chamber, criticizing Obama for switching the order of the words without, in any way, changing the meaning, scores points for Obama and makes us look petty.
Ah, no. That's what liberals say we look like. Big difference.
So was Obama just too dumb to know the oath or did he just decide that he shouldn't make waves and say it wrong?
Yup. ‘Give him a break’ mentality.
Uhhhh, no. He gets no breaks from me. God knows the media will be giving him all the passes he needs.
The bible tells us we should pray for our leaders, but it doesn't say to trust them. It doesn't say their decisions are just or holy. It doesn't say we can't dispute and correct error.
Why do they think Rush is so popular? Why do they think Ann Coulter sells millions of books? Why do they think Hannity has a TV show and a radio show? It's not because they agree with liberals or refuse to point out liberal faults.
The last we need conservatives to do is jump up and down, agree with the media and say "me too"!
No that shows that he's willing to compromise to get along. That means he's ready to sell out what was agreed upon and expected to look good. That means he's willing to violate the oath of office to not cause friction. Do you think that in a REAL pressure situation that he's going to all of a sudden change his spots?
"Violate the oath of office"?
You are really out there in tin-foil hat territory.
I find it very interesting that you completely ignored this part of my last post:
*********
Were the words or the meaning of the oath changed?
No. The order of the words was changed.
Does "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" have more meaning or any different meaning than "To the flag of the United States of America, I pledge allegiance"?
If you want to be ultra-picky about it, the phrase "so help me God" is NOT in the Constitution. Does that make all those oaths taken by all those Presidents that said "so help me God" as part of their oath "wrong"?
********
Do you not realize that claiming that an oath is "violated" because an adverb was put after, instead of before, a verb makes you sound extremely petty and anal-retentive?
If switching the position of an adverb from the exact text of the Constitution classifies as a "violation of the oath" then what does inserting the entire phrase "so help me God" that is not even in the Constitution classify as?
High treason?
I repeat, going ballistic over such a triviality does nothing to hurt Obama and makes our side look like tin-foil hatters that can't find a single other thing to criticize Obama about.
See Obama Flub Merits Do-Over, Says Scholars
I repeat, going ballistic over such a triviality does nothing to hurt Obama and makes our side look like tin-foil hatters that can't find a single other thing to criticize Obama about.
That's what's liberals would say. But conservatives would say that Obama doesn't mind violating the constitution in his very first act as President. That's the reality I see. It's true. It's obvious. And maybe it does require wearing tin foil if that's what protects us from the influence of the liberal media.
See FoxInSocks' reply on that thread:
Jeez, I detest Obama’s ideas as much as the next guy, but this is silly. What’s sillier is a bunch of “scholars” actually sat around and debated the topic. Do it again in private, just to be safe? C’mon, gimme a break. ...... 3 posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:51:07 PM by FoxInSocks
Since both you and these scholars with nothing better to do tonight are so obssesed with the EXACT ORDER of the words in the Constitution, why are you, after I have asked on two separate posts, still avoiding answering the question I posed:
"If switching the position of an adverb from the exact text of the Constitution classifies as a "violation of the oath" then what does inserting the entire phrase "so help me God" that is not even in the Constitution classify as?"
First of all my main point is and always has been that Obama folded on doing the right thing under pressure.
"If switching the position of an adverb from the exact text of the Constitution classifies as a "violation of the oath" then what does inserting the entire phrase "so help me God" that is not even in the Constitution classify as?"
Most would say that it's added at the end so as not to make a difference.
And are you really making the case that the exact wording of the Constitution means nothing?
True.
As much fun as it would be to make scorning and mocking the Democrat occupying the office, I doubt we’d set a great example for kids who don’t know better.
I don’t control you. I can only advise.
Legitimately criticize all you want.
Making sport of braying and whining about everything will alter your heart into that of a whiner and complainer. We don’t do that.
Then, after reading your Bible, put on a smile, praise the Lord, and get on with it.
It's not fun to scorn or mock. But it is necessary to exhort and defend. The disciples were martyred, killed, because they refused to back down. They refused to shut up. They refused to accept the status quo. As Christians we are to treat others with kindness, love and respect. But our allegiance is to God, not to earthly rulers.
I'm not equating the situations, but being a Christian doesn't mean you have to put a smile on your face and not raise a stink about the evil in the world. That's not complaining or whining.
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.