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.
Well, I'd take your word for it, but if you don't think an oath matters in the grand scheme of things, I'd ought not be taking your word about anything.
Why would she do so?
And also, did she take the oath?
Its not important as being that Obama is ineligible, they could have recited it properly in 115 languages including Klingon and it still would mean nothing except confirm perjury to an usurper.
I wasn’t trying to comment on all what you posted, but on what I directly witnessed
I also think it is possible that Obama was trying to give the Chief Justice the benefit of the doubt
What would have been the response if Obama repeated word for word what the Chief Justice said and did it correctly? He would have been repeating error, and knowingly so
So, by pausing and waiting for the Chief Justice, he was allowing him to correct himself, and then they both looked like fools pausing...
Cuz, there is only one alternaticve: When the Chief Justice blows it, recite the CORRECT oath...with the whole world knowing that what Obama said was NOT what the Chief Justice had just said...would THAT have been more of a funnnybone?
CJ saying it wrong and Obama going along?
Or CJ saying it wrong and Obama saying it right with everyone seeing that Obama would be saying something totally different than what the CJ had just said, thereby looking like he was correcting the CJ on live TV in front of the world??
In the end, they’re going to look like idiots in the end, regardless
:)
Who was it that said OAF? I heard that but didnt catch that person’s name
iWho was it that said OAF? I heard that but didnt catch that person’s name/ip
Diane Fineswine.
First of all my main point is and always has been that Obama folded on doing the right thing under pressure.
So, you believe that following the EXACT ADVERB ORDER of the text in the Constitution is the "right" thing to do and you believe that publicly humiliating the conservative Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in front of a live, worldwide audience of hundreds of millions is the "right" thing to do?
What makes you so convinced that publicly humiliating the conservative Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in front of a live, worldwide audience of hundreds of millions is the "right" thing to do?
Well, if you believe that, why waste your time with a "wrong" to the Constitution when you can spend your time defending the "right thing to do" in regards to the Holy Bible since the Lord's Prayer in the King Jame's Version of the Holy Bible has different versions in Luke 11:2-4 and Matthew 6:9-13?
So, please tell us.
Who was "right", Luke or Matthew?
If insisting on the EXACT ORDER OF AN ADVERB makes you "right", it follows that, by your exalted standards, the Holy Bible itself is "wrong" since the difference of the text of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 and in Matthew 6:9-13 is much greater than the exact order of an adverb.
"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.
I see. Once again, DouglasKC is the final authority of what is "right". Changing the EXACT ADVERB ORDER classifies as not doing the "right" thing and, as you claimed earlier, "violating the oath" but ADDING AN ENTIRE CLAUSE TO THE OATH is still "right" in your book because admitting otherwise blows a hole under the waterline of your position that the oath must be verbally recited EXACTLY as it is written in the text of the Constitution.
And are you really making the case that the exact wording of the Constitution means nothing?
I am making the case that, if that if VERBALLY RECITING the exact wording of the Constitution MUST be followed for the Presidential oath AS YOU CLAIM, then YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS and claim that the EXACT ORDER OF AN ADVERB is not "right" but ADDING AN ENTIRE CLAUSE is ALSO "right" because (insert lame tap dancing here).
The bottom line is that, to most of America, attacking Obama over this will make the attackers look like a tin-foil hat fanatics and that perception will allow Obama to skate future criticism by just mentioning the "Oath Tempest in a Teapot" and have most of America laugh at us and not with us.
If Obama saying the oath correctly despite it being read incorrectly is embarrassing then so be it. But once again that's my point. A leader does what's right no matter the consequences. As it was both of them ended up being embarrassed anyways. He could have saved public embarrassment of both by just ignoring Robert's slip and saying it correctly.
Well, if you believe that, why waste your time with a "wrong" to the Constitution when you can spend your time defending the "right thing to do" in regards to the Holy Bible since the Lord's Prayer in the King Jame's Version of the Holy Bible has different versions in Luke 11:2-4 and Matthew 6:9-13? So, please tell us. Who was "right", Luke or Matthew?
We don't know that. One? Both? We don't have access to the original documents upon which these translations were ultimately based on. It's different with the constitution though. We have the original document and what it specifies.
I see. Once again, DouglasKC is the final authority of what is "right". Changing the EXACT ADVERB ORDER classifies as not doing the "right" thing and, as you claimed earlier, "violating the oath" but ADDING AN ENTIRE CLAUSE TO THE OATH is still "right" in your book because admitting otherwise blows a hole under the waterline of your position that the oath must be verbally recited EXACTLY as it is written in the text of the Constitution.
Hey your beef isn't with me. The framers of the constitution specified what to say, not me:
"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."
As I noted previously a number of scholars agree that he should retake if or he would be in violation of the constitution.
I really can't believe you're arguing this point. Liberals want to banish the 2nd amendment based upon the wording of the constitution. The founders framed and worded the constitution very specifically for very specific reasons.
The bottom line is that, to most of America, attacking Obama over this will make the attackers look like a tin-foil hat fanatics and that perception will allow Obama to skate future criticism by just mentioning the "Oath Tempest in a Teapot" and have most of America laugh at us and not with us.
Upholding the constitution in any way looks like tin hat stuff to most Americans. But especially to liberals. So I won't lose any sleep over it.
"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."
Edit: Click
Find on this page ... Ctrl+F: Click
Find: "so help me God". Click Next
Text not found.
So, it sems that, by your claim:
1.) All President that added the clause "so help me God" to the exact wording in the Constitution took an invalid oath. For all we know, any one of them could have been an atheist in his heart and adding that phrase was the way they could negate the oath.
2.) All Presidents that added their name to the exact wording in the Constitution took an invalid oath. The framers of the Constitution specified what to say and they did NOT say ANYTHING about adding a name. For all we know, omitting a second middle name was the way they could negate the oath.
3.) All Presidents that simply stated, "I will" or "I do" took an invalid oath. The parroting of the entire oath by the new President is a modern custom. Prior to that, the Chief Justice would ask the oath in the form of a question and the new President would respond in the affirmative as in the case of a marriage ceremony.
Below is a link to a pdf of a photocopy of the New York Times article describing the oath administered to Chester A. Arthur in 1881:
The historical reality is that seldom, if EVER, has the new President EXACTLY said:
"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."
I am already hearing “Roberts intentionally tried to make him look bad — evil Republicians!!!!!!!!”
Condi was in charge for 3 minutes....
Added before or after doesn't matter. If you took it to your logical conclusion then any oath is invalid if anyone ever said anything before they took the oath or after they took the oath.
2.) All Presidents that added their name to the exact wording in the Constitution took an invalid oath. The framers of the Constitution specified what to say and they did NOT say ANYTHING about adding a name. For all we know, omitting a second middle name was the way they could negate the oath.
I would argue that his reinforces the oath by naming and taking responsibility for the oath.
3.) All Presidents that simply stated, "I will" or "I do" took an invalid oath. The parroting of the entire oath by the new President is a modern custom. Prior to that, the Chief Justice would ask the oath in the form of a question and the new President would respond in the affirmative as in the case of a marriage ceremony
I guess that would be okay as long as ONE party said it correctly.
But once again you're ignoring the main point I've always been making:
There is a correct, right, acceptable wording of the oath. Barak Obama made a decision, at a stressful momement, to change the wording to GO ALONG with somebody else's error. THAT'S the point I'm making. Under stress he folded. He gave up what was right and went along with what he KNEW to be wrong. That concerns me because what will happen in negotiations with terrorists? Will he sell out to get along? To avoid embarrassment?
Now you haven't addressed that. You keep trying to say (in essence) that it doesn't MATTER what he said so he didn't do anything "wrong". So tell me, how far off can the wording of the oath be and still count?
While everyone wants to cut Obama a break, the left stays busy defining conservatives to the know nothings across the country.
Obama mocked Nancy Reagan his very first press conference as President elect.
Liberals don't waste any opportunity. Conservatives defend liberals. Liberals control the government. It's all related.
Adding an entire clause "doesn't matter" but changing the order of an adverb does matter?
I would argue that his reinforces the oath by naming ....
Inserting a name WITHIN THE OATH "doesn't matter" but changing the order of an adverb does matter? I thought your claim was that only things added "before or after" don't matter.
I guess that would be okay as long as ONE party said it correctly.
Ummmm ... the "correct" was to say it, according to the EXACT wording of the Constitution is:
"I .... repeat ..... "I ..... not "YOU" ..... "I ..... do solemnly swear ..."
If the Chief Justice repeated the oath EXACTLY as the Constitution states, the Chief Justice would be swearing HIMSELF in as President and the President-elect's response of "I will" would be a non sequitur.
The historical fact of the matter is that, up until at least the Inaugurations after President Arthur's Inauguration, the EXACT text of the Constitution was NEVER said by EITHER the Chief Justice OR the President-elect.
You have contradicted your own position so many times that you have succeeded in winning the debate against yourself.
Meanwhile, the racism that was tolerated at the Obama Inauguration is being ignored because we are expecting Obama to have uttered the EXACT words of the Constitution while the historical record indicates that no President has probably ever done so.
Pick your battles.
This is a diversionary skirmish that is helping the Democrats.
But once again you're ignoring the main point I've always been making:
There is a correct, right, acceptable wording of the oath. Barak Obama made a decision, at a stressful momement, to change the wording to GO ALONG with somebody else's error. THAT'S the point I'm making. Under stress he folded. He gave up what was right and went along with what he KNEW to be wrong. That concerns me because what will happen in negotiations with terrorists? Will he sell out to get along? To avoid embarrassment?
Now you haven't addressed that. You keep trying to say (in essence) that it doesn't MATTER what he said so he didn't do anything "wrong". So tell me, how far off can the wording of the oath be and still count?
That’s not complaining or whining.
***********************
I can see your point. Thank you.
ALL the words must be in there that convey the EXACT MEANING.
U.S. Constitution's exact text:
"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."
EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (insert name), solemnly swear (or affirm) that you 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."
President (insert name): "I will, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (insert name), solemnly swear (or affirm) that you 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."
President (insert name): "I do, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER THREE:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (insert no name), solemnly swear (or affirm) that you 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."
President (insert name): "I will, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER FOUR:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (insert no name), solemnly swear (or affirm) that you 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."
President (insert name): "I will, (No mention of God)."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER FIVE:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (insert name), solemnly swear (or affirm) that you 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."
President (insert name): "I do, (No mention of God)."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER SIX:
President (parroting after Chief Justice): "I (insert name) 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."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER SEVEN:
President (parroting after Chief Justice): "I (No name inserted) 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."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER EIGHT:
President (parroting after Chief Justice): "I (No name inserted) 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, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER NINE:
President (parroting after Chief Justice): "I (Name inserted) 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, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER TEN:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (insert name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
President (insert name): "I will, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER ELEVEN:
Chief Justice: "Do you, (No insert name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
President (insert name): "I will, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER TWELVE:
President (parroting after Chief Justice): "I (insert name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
COUNTS
********
EXAMPLE NUMBER THIRTEEN:
President (parroting after Chief Justice): "I (insert name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."
COUNTS
********
Etc., etc., etc.
The bottom line is that the historical record indicates that no Preseident EVER recited the oath EXACTLY as it is written in the Constution, starting with George Washington.
Biden Takes Shot at Roberts for Flubbing Presidential Oath (Classless change we can not believe in)
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.