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.