[chickpundit]

While one of the words was out of place, he still recited the oath administered by the Chief Justice. There are other legitimate issues to bring, but I don’t think this is one. He can’t be happy about how it went down though ... the historical moment was mildly marred by the confusion.

I used the incident to make my son feel better today. He was nervous about an oral report he has to give in class today. I told him Obama messed up the oath, but he’s still the President. My kids found this quite funny. They noticed the flub when they watched it at school.

[autumnraine]

Cloud over his head.

[BuckeyeTexan]

faithfully execute or execute ... faithfully

“Faithfully” is an adverb of manner and as such is usually placed after the verb or entire expression. The meaning of the sentence isn’t changed if the word is before the verb or after the entire expression.

These experts didn’t give a crap whether or not Obama displayed his credentials to qualify for office but they suddenly care where the adverb is placed in the sentence.

Give me a dang break. There are bigger clouds hanging over him than adverb placement.

[MEGoody]

I don’t see any difference in meaning. Am I missing something?

[justiceseeker93]

As the people at newsMax should know, the real constituional problem is not a minor change in the verbiage in the oath administered.

The real problem is that Obama almost surely committed perjury in taking the oath: he swore that he would protect the Constitution, whereas his taking the office of the presidency violates the "natural born citizen" clause in all likelihood. He has never presented evidence to substantiate that he is a natural born citizen (nor even presented evidence to substantiate that he is a citizen).

[vietvet67]

[reagan_fanatic]

“He should probably go ahead and take the oath again. If he doesn’t, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn’t meet the constitutional standard.”

Oh, what the hell - the left mocked Bush as selected, not elected, so why not have a little bit of fun at Obama's expense?

[edcoil]

The Constitution, specifically prevents Sen. Clinton from being Secretary of State as well. It says you cannot vote a raise for one office then assume or be appointed to that office — However, all of our elected representatives swearing a oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution will vote her in anyway.

Our Constitution in now a document used in Washington DC.

[freekitty]

Why? His first oath was illegal anyway. Two wrongs in this case two swearing of oaths don’t make a right.

[informavoracious]

I am sure Barry likes it this way - he cannot legally be bound to the Oath.

[Raster Man]

Good idea. Afterwards, Alexander can recite her “poem” again.

[DBrow]

I posted yesterday that he should do it at the Superbowl, right before Springsteen takes the stage.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Well, that’s the second constitutional crisis into which he’s thrown us.

[wolfcreek]

“execute the President of the United States faithfully.”

Coulda been worse.

[TChris]

Whoopdie doo.

Does anyone believe that B. Hussein Obama will show greater respect for the Constitution if he repeats the Oath of Office?

Few of those in government care even the least bit about protecting and defending the Constitution. Mr. Obama is certainly not among them.

[longtermmemmory]

oh please, this is utter nonsense. There is no “oath” provision in the constitution for taking office. If he did nothing he would still automatically be president.

This is just tinfoil hat stuff.

“constitutional experts”? given the rubberstamp quality of law school education, that does not say much.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

You’ve got to be kidding me.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, told the Post: “He should probably go ahead and take the oath again. If he doesn’t, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn’t meet the constitutional standard.”

Tell me all I need to know. Jonathan Turdley, bless his heart, has stumbled upon our master plan.

Is this the left's version of a preemptive strike?

[TigersEye]

Josh White of the Washington Post noted: “The presidential oath of office is required of a new president before he can execute his power, and the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.”

It does? Where does it say anything about "speaking the oath exactly?" Where does it say the oath even has to be spoken? Does an oath have to be spoken or can you just sign your name to it? Where does the Constitution say anything about misspeaking? Does it say "exactly" what to do if the Justice misspeaks? You are supposed to "repeat after me" when given an oath. Maybe the only correct thing would have been for 0bama to repeat Roberts' misspeak and his correction.

Rove just can't stop playing with that machine.

[Political Junkie Too]

...the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.”

What? There isn't an emanation from a penumbra that suggest that what Obama said wasn't good enough?

This is a Constitutional point that "scholars" are fretting over? Why can't they worry about the "natural born" clause, after all, it's even less than 35 words?

-PJ