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.
My country, ‘tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
hey I know th first vers of this old tune
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring!
And I also know The pledge of aligence, you know to the flag and et al.
YUP! The fact that our newly elected leader mispoke or did somting “goofy” with his inaguration will mean nothing to the obababites, I’m stuck with the Con myself, if I could offer Obama help in this matter, I’d honestly say go far away, Far Far Away, like where you came from and when you get there STFU.
It’s not a big deal, but there is some schadenfreude involved in teasing libs about it, and in knowing that his big moment was botched.
Probably Grant. He was rather well known as a sot.
If you really believe that, then you'd better go back and demote the memory of some other Presidents who REALLY screwed it up. Look up Herbert Hoover, for example, who substituted entirely different words. The oath as prescribed in the Constitution is of course important, but I don't think repeating the mis-ordering of the words is a big deal.
Obama clearly knew the proper form -- I bet he practiced it a hundred times. So when Roberts bungled it, they both got thrown off.
So what? They got past that, completed the oath, and Obama's now the President.
Get over it. There's much more important stuff coming soon.
I don't see it as trivial at all. I see it as indicative of his character. He would rather be agreeable than do what's right. Under pressure, he would rather do what makes him or those around him look good rather than the right thing.
The problem is that he doesn't care. It would take all of fifteen seconds to rectify the matter. He who is faithless in little things is faithless in great things.
It sounded to me like Obama knew Roberts said it wrong and paused to give Roberts a chance to correct himself. After an awkward moment he decided just to go with “repeat after me”.
Trivial.
The judge was nervous, and Obama was looking for a correction.
Mountain, Mole-hill.
We have bigger fish to fry.
Gentlemen, Ladies. Let’s all calm down here.
He did not screw up the OATH.
According to the Honorable Feinstein, Chief Justice Roberts was to have President Obama repeat the “Oaff of Office”.
Which after Ms. Feinstein’s remarks I believe went lock, step, and barrel down the path it was meant to go.
Zero is The Man.
THe Chief Justice swears in both the Prez and VP elect before the ‘public’ ceremony. As they have for years and years.
Take a deep breath. Pace yurself.
It is going to be a long 4 years.
/Salute
That's what I saw. There was a moment of recognition when he knew Roberts said it wrong. He had a decision to make. Say it right or repeat the error. He didn't lead. He repeated the error.
Or as Di-Fi said “Oaf of Office”
Again instead of doing the right thing he decides, makes a conscious decision, to look at the situation and do the wrong thing. Situational ethics.
"I __________ do solemnly swear."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA
There once was a lawyer named “Rex”
Who had very small organs of sex.
When asked of the function,
He said with compunction
“De minimis non curat lex.”
“The law does not concern itself with trifles.”
Look, I am no fan of Obama. Yes, it would have been nice if it had been handled differently. But unless Chief Justice Roberts is also part of “the grand conspiracy” to destroy America, then the concern over the oath is misplaced legalism.
Please let us try and avoid what the left did to America in the last 8 years. Soon enough I suppose someone will have to name the malady as Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I think that's the same as repeating after the judge.
Only if you are as nutty as they are.
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.