NationStates Jolt Archive

This article just kinda speaks for itself:

Experts say Obama should retake the oath

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

(01-21) 04:00 PST Washington - -- Several constitutional lawyers said President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The 35-word oath is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president "shall" take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office."

The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear 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."

In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully," at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

A do-over "would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it's not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe," said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. "It's an open question whether he's president until he takes the proper oath."

The courts would probably never hear a challenge, and some might argue that Obama automatically took office at noon because that's when President Bush left the office. But because the procedure is so explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Beermann said if he were Obama's lawyer, he would recommend retaking it, just as two previous presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, did under similar circumstances.

"The Constitution says what he's supposed to say," Beermann said. "... It's kind of surprising the chief justice couldn't get it right."

The only reason not to retake the oath would be to prevent further embarrassment of the chief justice, he said. "It would seem appropriate for the president of the United States to take the oath specified in the Constitution," he said. "It's the same oath all 43 of his predecessors took. He ought to take it."

Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that the oath is mandatory, that an incorrect recitation should be fixed and that he would be surprised if the oath hadn't already been re-administered.

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, was hosting an inauguration party at his home in McLean, Va., Tuesday and did a mock swearing-in of 35 children. When Roberts erred, one child shouted: "That's not right!"

"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Turley said. "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. I don't think it's necessary, and it's not a constitutional crisis. This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe malfunction."

Chronicle news services contributed to this report. E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Alright would be legal eagles (And the few real deals we've got roosting here) what do you guys think? Is President Obama actually the president since the oath got flubbed?

Uhm.. yeah?

Considering that both the intent and content of the oath were materially completed, I'd say he's most definitely President.

Technically, he was president before even taking the oath.

So, no.

No. He should do it over in EVERY LANGUAGE ON EARTH! And do it a billion times each.

*Pulls on Devil's advocate cap*
Ah, but the Constitution DOES state that a president MUST recite the oath BEFORE assuming the office and a lot of case law is built upon following the Constitution to the letter, since Obama DIDN'T do that...

Its too late now. Bush and military forces just seized the white house and is using the failed oath as an excuse to maintain power indefinably. This apperntly was the plan by justice Roberts all along. Mass riots reported in DC,new york and Chicago.
News black out getting this off cell phone text exchange before they black that out too. Get your guns America looks like civil war II is here.

Its too late now. Bush and military forces just seized the white house and is using the failed oath as an excuse to maintain power indefinably. This apperntly was the plan by justice Roberts all along. Mass riots reported in DC,new york and Chicago.
News black out getting this off cell phone text exchange before they black that out too. Get your guns America looks like civil war II is here.
Sucks to be you guys then. :D

Sure. Like they say in the article, it takes about 30 seconds and at least we wouldn't have to read the usual suspects' stupid posts about it for the next four years.

Yeah, there should be no problem. It would reaffirm some people's confidence in him, or, in my case, such a gesture may result in him garnering more respect from his critics.

He should do it. Their should be no doubt about his legitimacy. And frankly, playing fast and loose with the Constitution, or even giving that appearence, doesn't sound like change. He's got nothing to lose by playing it safe.

Just remember, the man is a Constitutional lawyer. He should know what the rules are.

I fail to see what 35 words do that 56% (or whatever percentage it was) of voters doesn't.

I fail to see what 35 words do that 56% (or whatever percentage it was) of voters doesn't.
I fail to see what one final test does that four years of college doesn't either, but they don't let you graduate unless you take and pass the final anyway.

This article just kinda speaks for itself:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Alright would be legal eagles (And the few real deals we've got roosting here) what do you guys think? Is President Obama actually the president since the oath got flubbed?

yes. Chief Justice Roberts screwed up, Obama screwed up, but it's window-dressing. Obama is, by law and custom, the President of the United States.

For god's sake he's president and you'd have to be a fool to say otherwise.
honestly it's like watching vultures trying to peck at superman, you only get to eat him once he's dead folks.

Hillary Clinton also cannot be Secretary of State, but there she is. There's something to be said for convention

This article just kinda speaks for itself:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Alright would be legal eagles (And the few real deals we've got roosting here) what do you guys think? Is President Obama actually the president since the oath got flubbed?

This is not the first time that this happened and the last two times it did, it was redone privately. So yea, he is still president.

I fail to see what 35 words do that 56% (or whatever percentage it was) of voters doesn't.

It is called the Constitution of the United States. The oath has to be administered EXACTLY!

Hillary Clinton also cannot be Secretary of State, but there she is. There's something to be said for convention

Uh...yes she can be Secretary of State. They worked all of that out and before you say anything, she's not the first to run up on roadblocks like this either. There is precedent so there :P

This article just kinda speaks for itself:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

Alright would be legal eagles (And the few real deals we've got roosting here) what do you guys think? Is President Obama actually the president since the oath got flubbed?

I think people place a bit TOO much emphasis on the constitution at times. Yes, it's an extremely important legal document, but it's not holy writ. It's not words from god on high. The constitution is about ideals and aspirations, about setting up a framework for our nation.

It is NOT a set of rules so utterly unbendable as to render even the most slightly technical deviation a complete wash. Obama took the oath, he is now president. The fact that a word got swapped is immaterial. He did what the fundamental essence of the constitution required of him, swore to uphold the constitution itself.

The words therein are largely unimportant, even if the constitution provides the means and form for doing so.

Hillary Clinton also cannot be Secretary of State, but there she is.

Yes, she can. They specifically lowered Sec. State's salary so it would be constitutionally permissible.

It is called the Constitution of the United States. The oath has to be administered EXACTLY!

and I disagree. The important thing here to remember is intent of the drafters. What did those who wrote the constitution intend for it to do?

Did they intend that this, exactly this, and no other way but this was the sole and final method by which the president could be sworn in, by these words, only these words, and nothing but these words?

Or did they intend to ensure that, in order to take office, one must swore to uphold the law of the land, and provided a short, plains statement by which this may be accomplished?

If it's the second, that it was written only to provide a means to accomplish an end, and not a strict end onto itself, then a minor derivation of the order of words which does not materially alter the meaning of the statement is irrelevant. He still fulfilled the intent of the founders, he did that which they intended for him to do, swore an oath to uphold the constitution.

and I disagree. The important thing here to remember is intent of the drafters. What did those who wrote the constitution intend for it to do?

And I disagree with you.

Did they intend that this, exactly this, and no other way but this was the sole and final method by which the president could be sworn in, by these words, only these words, and nothing but these words?

Considering the fact that Coolidge redid the oath of office after flubbing it during his inaugeration, I'd say that it was meant to be done word for word.

And I disagree with you.

That's fine, is your right. I think it's foolish, however, to be so caught up in minutia that we miss the forest for the trees. The constitution is a framework, it should be treated as such.

It should not be treated in such a manner as to perceive it to be holy writ. The constitution requires that the president swear to uphold the law of the land, and proscribes a means of doing so. Obama's oath was substantively the same, fulfilled the same meaning, and carried out the same purpose. It thus fulfilled the intent of the founders. The fact that he misplaced the word "faithfully" is of no consequence.

Considering the fact that Coolidge redid the oath of office after flubbing it during his inaugeration, I'd say that it was meant to be done word for word.

And a five year old does not step on a crack for fear of breaking his mother's back. It does not mean that his matriarch will find herself in a chiropractic emergency should he tread his soles upon a disfigurement in the sidewalk.

And I disagree with you.


And I think you look like Mclovin (http://www.pod1.co.za/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/mclovin.jpeg)

ahh I see we have a fight between the strict interpreters of the constitution and the loose interpreters of the constitution. I say whether or not he is constitutionally allowed to do this he should do it just to silence all the people who hate him so they don't claim he is not the president.

That's fine, is your right. I think it's foolish, however, to be so caught up in minutia that we miss the forest for the trees. The constitution is a framework, it should be treated as such.

So based on that, then I guess the government can do whatever they want since it is only a framework and not to be taken as gospel according to you.

It should not be treated in such a manner as to perceive it to be holy writ.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State, shall be bound thereby; any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Seems to me it is holy writ in that nothing can contradict what the Constitution says.

The constitution requires that the president swear to uphold the law of the land, and proscribes a means of doing so. Obama's oath was substantively the same, fulfilled the same meaning, and carried out the same purpose. It thus fulfilled the intent of the founders. The fact that he misplaced the word "faithfully" is of no consequence.

To some it is. Frankly, as one Constitution Scholar said in one of the papers: "I would be surprised if the oath had not already been redone."

And a five year old does not step on a crack for fear of breaking his mother's back. It does not mean that his matriarch will find herself in a chiropractic emergency should he tread his soles upon a disfigurement in the sidewalk.

Considering the fact that some constitution scholars indicate that it has to be said exactly and I have not heard anything that allows for deviation from the oath, I'll take their word.

ahh I see we have a fight between the strict interpreters of the constitution and the loose interpreters of the constitution. I say whether or not he is constitutionally allowed to do this he should do it just to silence all the people who hate him so they don't claim he is not the president.

In truth, no one really cares since it was probably already redone anyways. Not that I truly care.

no he doesnt need to redo the oath.

its not magic.

So based on that, then I guess the government can do whatever they want since it is only a framework and not to be taken as gospel according to you.

.......I don't think you understand the words that you just said. How in holy hell you go from "the constitution is a framework for how we run our government" to "we don't have to follow the constitution!" is beyond me. I noticed your analytical reasoning has not improved in your absence.

Seems to me it is holy writ

....are you serious? Are you actually arguing that the constitution of the united states is literally the word of god? Seriously? Of course the constitution should "not to be taken as gospel". It's not gospel. It's not holy writ.

Considering the fact that some constitution scholars indicate that it has to be said exactly and I have not heard anything that allows for deviation from the oath, I'll take their word.

And you're hearing from another constitutional scholar that it does not.

Moreover, let's take a look at ANOTHER part of the constitution, shall we, specifically the twentiety amendment:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The 20th amendment states that the term of office for the president ends promptly at noon and the term of successors then immediately begins. Nothing about requiring an oath before hand. The 20th amendment, which supercedes Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, states clearly that Bush's term of office ended at noon on the 20th of January, and Obama's began immediately thereafter. No requirement for an oath is given.

You know there is some racist person or Obama hater that would love to have a reason to say Obama should'nt be president. If he already redid it he should make it public to keep all the dissenters quiet.

It does not mean that his matriarch will find herself in a chiropractic emergency should he tread his soles upon a disfigurement in the sidewalk.

Giving the old thesaurus a workout, eh?

Yes, she can. They specifically lowered Sec. State's salary so it would be constitutionally permissible.
What about the salary prior to it being lowered made it unconstitutional?

And a five year old does not step on a crack for fear of breaking his mother's back.
Harsh.

Over here, it's your own back you break if one dare step on a crack.

Is President Obama actually the president since the oath got flubbed?

I want Obama to swear in at least once a week. So we get to see Bush walking away.

What about the salary prior to it being lowered made it unconstitutional?

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the constitution states that:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have have been encreased during such time

The basic reason for this is that because congress creates civil offices by law, and decides their pay, as a matter of law, the constitution forbids any congress person from entering into an office that was created, or saw a pay increase, during the time that person was in congress. This is to prevent congress effectively inventing offices for themselves. We don't want a congress person, knowing that he is going to be appointed to the cabinet, to have the power to vote on increasing his own future salary.

Because the salary of the Secretary of State was raised during the time Clinton was in Congress, the clause to the constitution would read, from a technical standpoint, that she was forbidden from becomming secretary of state. However, this has a work around by, essentially, lowering her sec. state salary back to the way it was before she took office in Congress.

Is President Obama actually the president since the oath got flubbed?

Consider what would happen if he wasn't president...

The Constitution lays out very few specific procedures.

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."

Emphasis by me. He may be in the office by tradition and law, but he cannot execute any duties as President without swearing this oath word-for-word. Until he does so, he has no authority. The Constitution specifies very few procedures so precisely, and it's important to follow those few that are spelled out if you really respect the law.

Consider what would happen if he wasn't president...
Bush would be out, so who cares? "Oh, my GAWD! We have no President for 5 WHOLE MINUTES! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" Not really.

Seems to me it is holy writ in that nothing can contradict what the Constitution says.

While objections to the above sentence have already been raised, am I correct in remembering that Mormons do believe that the US Constitution is a divinely-inspired document, and therefore arguably holy writ (for Mormons, that is)?

And would Mormons therefore be more likely to argue that President Obama isn't actually President due to the flubbed oath of office?

I stress that I'm not arguing for that perspective, merely throwing a thought out.

And add me to the list of people who think Roberts and Obama have probably already privately re-done the oath, just in case.

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the constitution states that:



The basic reason for this is that because congress creates civil offices by law, and decides their pay, as a matter of law, the constitution forbids any congress person from entering into an office that was created, or saw a pay increase, during the time that person was in congress. This is to prevent congress effectively inventing offices for themselves. We don't want a congress person, knowing that he is going to be appointed to the cabinet, to have the power to vote on increasing his own future salary.

Because the salary of the Secretary of State was raised during the time Clinton was in Congress, the clause to the constitution would read, from a technical standpoint, that she was forbidden from becomming secretary of state. However, this has a work around by, essentially, lowering her sec. state salary back to the way it was before she took office in Congress.
its just another example of a woman being paid less than a man for more work.

Bush would be out, so who cares? "Oh, my GAWD! We have no President for 5 WHOLE MINUTES! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" Not really.

actually, if we really want to assume that Obama isn't president because he messed it up, then right now Joe Biden is president.

actually, if we really want to assume that Obama isn't president because he messed it up, then right now Joe Biden is president.

Awesome, I guess that means Biden's the 44th, and Obama's the 45th?

Fine by me, Jo Biden kicks ass.:)

Its a trick. The right willl try and make him repeat it again and again until he loses concentration and accidentally says a line in Arabic.

no he doesnt need to redo the oath.

its not magic.
This.^^

Its a trick. The right willl try and make him repeat it again and again until he loses concentration and accidentally says a line in Arabic.
Also this.^^

Of all the stupid "concerns" raised about Obama, this has to be the stupidest. Two words were transposed by the person administering the oath, not the person swearing it, AND he corrected himself right then and there. Are people really so silly that they would take this seriously -- whether its because they hate Obama that much or because they fear Obama-haters that much? Or do they just hate Justice Roberts so much that they want to keep rubbing this itty-bitty embarassment in his face?

Bush would be out, so who cares? "Oh, my GAWD! We have no President for 5 WHOLE MINUTES! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" Not really.

Hey those terrorist have been preping for an attack for quite some time. They are probably waiting to strike at our weakest moment. Like the five minutes when we don't have a president. lol.

Of all the stupid "concerns" raised about Obama, this has to be the stupidest. Two words were transposed by the person administering the oath, not the person swearing it, AND he corrected himself right then and there. Are people really so silly that they would take this seriously -- whether its because they hate Obama that much or because they fear Obama-haters that much? Or do they just hate Justice Roberts so much that they want to keep rubbing this itty-bitty embarassment in his face?

Yes, You probably know somebody who would do that. In fact as you read this that person's name comes to mind.

Awesome, I guess that means Biden's the 44th, and Obama's the 45th?

43rd and 44th in my book - some of us refuse to count Grover Cleveland twice, you know.

It's always struck me as silly that the only person to hold non-consecutive terms is both the 22nd and the 24th president (hopes he remembers Cleveland's numbers correctly). Did he change his essential identity somewhere between terms?

It's also needlessly confusing. Somewhere at the beginning of his speech, Obama made reference to 'the 44 men who have taken this oath', which is patently incorrect. He may be the 44th president in the 'official' count, but because of Cleveland's non-consecutive terms, only 43 men have taken the oath.

It's always struck me as silly that the only person to hold non-consecutive terms is both the 22nd and the 24th president (hopes he remembers Cleveland's numbers correctly). Did he change his essential identity somewhere between terms?


Yes. Little did the public realize, but Grover Cleveland was killed in a battle with a super-powered monster. The 24th president known as "Grover Cleveland" was actually the cyborg Grover Cleveland.

its just another example of a woman being paid less than a man for more work.

Uh actually not in this case.

Uh actually not in this case.

*sigh*

Yes. Little did the public realize, but Grover Cleveland was killed in a battle with a super-powered monster. The 24th president known as "Grover Cleveland" was actually the cyborg Grover Cleveland.

Ooooh, I can just see it now....

Godzilla vs. Benjamin Harrison

<stilted dubbed dialogue follows>

"Look Tojo, it is a giant super-powered 19th-century American president, and it threatens all Tokyo."

"Surely it is not Rutherford B. Hayes, Sir? Did not Godzilla defeat him last year?"

"No you fool. It is much worse. It is Benjamin Harrison!"

"AIEEEEEEEEEE!"

<both flee in horror>

Yes. Little did the public realize, but Grover Cleveland was killed in a battle with a super-powered monster. The 24th president known as "Grover Cleveland" was actually the cyborg Grover Cleveland.

carrying on a fine tradition of "once was man, now is monster" presidents started with Zombie Lincoln and continued on with William "the Blob" Taft

*sigh*

We've already established why she had to take a pay cut and it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.

Uh actually not in this case.

Uh, actually yes. All the other Cabinet secretaries still get the increased salary, although none of them have as tough a job as the Secretary of State.

I don't think it matters whether Obama retakes the oath. The people who think he "isn't really President" on those grounds are just the same people who already think he was secretly born in Kenya and isn't even a citizen; there'll be no satisfying them, ever.

Uh, actually yes. All the other Cabinet secretaries still get the increased salary, although none of them have as tough a job as the Secretary of State.

I don't think it matters whether Obama retakes the oath. The people who think he "isn't really President" on those grounds are just the same people who already think he was secretly born in Kenya and isn't even a citizen; there'll be no satisfying them, ever.

Yep, this.

A word got switched around. Big deal. He executed the intent of the oath, and made the promis but with one word in a different place.

Besides, he was president at noon anyway, with or without the oath.

Of course he shouldn't have to retake the oath. This is just silliness. So a word was misplaced, big deal. It was a public affirmation of his intent to be all presidenty, witnessed by 100,000,000s of people and taken in front of the chief justice. That should be more than enough to please anyone with a normal brain. And the reality is oaths mean nothing anyway. GWB nailed his first one, and people have done nothing but complain about his presidentyness since then.

It's a silly relic of a bygone era.

(Anway, we all know he is not really president anyway, because he was born in Kenya. He's not even a citizen :p)

it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.
Yeah right, that's what they always say...

no. he doesn't need to take it again. it was the guy administering it who screwed up anyway.

besides, i think he's already demonstrated more willingness to take seriously its meaning and intent, then pretty much anyone we've seen assume the office in the past 30 years.

for most of those past 30 years, domestic enimies of the whole idea of constitutionality and rule of law have held that highest office in the u.s., and even for a time, simultaniously dominated the federal legislature.

whatever else it succeeds or fails to accomplish, i do believe and expect we will see, if not a complete break from that infestation of corruption, at the very least, a signiffigant reduction in it.

It was a public affirmation of his intent to be all presidenty
At least he's not going to be all mavericky.

At least he's not going to be all mavericky.

god help us if McCain won.

I do solemnly swear that I will maverick up the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my maverick ability, preserve, protect, defend and get all mavericky up in the Constitution of the United States.

Maverick.

god help us if McCain won.

I do solemnly swear that I will maverick up the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my maverick ability, preserve, protect, defend and get all mavericky up in the Constitution of the United States.

Maverick.

Now I can't see McCain as anything but a Pokemon.

god help us if McCain won.

I do solemnly swear that I will maverick up the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my maverick ability, preserve, protect, defend and get all mavericky up in the Constitution of the United States.

Maverick.

I always wondered at their definition of Maverick.

How can one be conservative and a maverick?

It's obviously double think. He is conservative and a maverick.

I absolutely do not think Obama needs to retake the oath. The intent, and not the precise order of the words, is clearly the point, and no one in their right mind thinks that there is a significant difference between promising to "execute faithfully" and promising to "faithfully execute."

That said, given that anyone can administer the oath and no particular book is required, Obama might as well take the thirty seconds to have Michelle give it to him properly over dinner or something, just to put an end even to silly speculation.

I absolutely do not think Obama needs to retake the oath. The intent, and not the precise order of the words, is clearly the point, and no one in their right mind thinks that there is a significant difference between promising to "execute faithfully" and promising to "faithfully execute."

That said, given that anyone can administer the oath and no particular book is required, Obama might as well take the thirty seconds to have Michelle give it to him properly over dinner or something, just to put an end even to silly speculation.

hell, for all we know he said it to himself in the shower this morning.

I absolutely do not think Obama needs to retake the oath. The intent, and not the precise order of the words, is clearly the point, and no one in their right mind thinks that there is a significant difference between promising to "execute faithfully" and promising to "faithfully execute."

That said, given that anyone can administer the oath and no particular book is required, Obama might as well take the thirty seconds to have Michelle give it to him properly over dinner or something, just to put an end even to silly speculation.
Do you think it actually would put an end to it? The State of Hawaii produced his freakin' birth certificate, but we still have to hear the occasional loon claiming he was born in Kenya. Better to ignore this sort of nonsense.

Do you think it actually would put an end to it? The State of Hawaii produced his freakin' birth certificate, but we still have to hear the occasional loon claiming he was born in Kenya. Better to ignore this sort of nonsense.

frankly, I get a little twinge of liberal pride every time Obama oh so obviously ignores whatever new conspiracy theory comes along.

Trying to constantly fight the smears is what sunk Kerry. Obama has done it the entire way around. Anyone challenges him? He bankrupts them in legal fees fighting it. And right now, he's got an entire staff of lawyers, all on government payroll, whose sole job it is, is to defend him from suits.

lol

So in the last minutes before you guys got a new President the Constitution counts for something again and must be followed word by word? Uh-huh.

So in the last minutes before you guys got a new President the Constitution counts for something again and must be followed word by word? Uh-huh.

you make a good point. It is somehow interesting that the people who are saying "he's not really president, he said execute faithfully, not faithfully execute!" are the sum same people who for the last 8 years have been trying to sell the line of "well, 'any person' doesn't really mean ANY person'"

No, he doesn't need to take the oath again, since he already TOOK THE OATH. Hence the use of the word AGAIN.

This isn't even an argument.

you make a good point. It is somehow interesting that the people who are saying "he's not really president, he said execute faithfully, not faithfully execute!" are the sum same people who for the last 8 years have been trying to sell the line of "well, 'any person' doesn't really mean ANY person'"
Exactly!

Besides, there's no difference in meaning. Maybe "execute faithfully" puts a little more stress on the "faithfully" - but that's all.

Jeez. Instead of being happy that you guys finally, finally have a new President, no, there's always gotta be some people who... Gah!

Nevermind that. Obama's your President and that's that!

frankly, I get a little twinge of liberal pride every time Obama oh so obviously ignores whatever new conspiracy theory comes along.

Trying to constantly fight the smears is what sunk Kerry. Obama has done it the entire way around. Anyone challenges him? He bankrupts them in legal fees fighting it. And right now, he's got an entire staff of lawyers, all on government payroll, whose sole job it is, is to defend him from suits.

I hear ya. I'd go with a happy medium on this one, where he tells people at some point, "Well, I said it the right way over dinner last night, so now you can drop it. Oh, you want me to do it again publicly? Sorry, no, it's been done and now I'm going to do useful things instead." :tongue:

Whatever the right can do to keep George Bush around I guess...

He should have to take it again. If he doesn't I will critisize him. =]

Cheers!

He should have to take it again. If he doesn't I will critisize him. =]

Cheers!

I'm sure he's shaking in his boots about the prospect of your criticism...

loot? I am going to the the Walton's mansion and robbing the place blind. Me and my gang of motorcycle thugs that is.

Let me guess, you guys look something like this.

http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/rwhumungus2.jpg

I'm kinda amused that the Chief Justice couldn't remember his lines. You'd think he hadn't read the constitution before :p

I'm kinda amused that the Chief Justice couldn't remember his lines. You'd think he hadn't read the constitution before :p

I was under no such presumption. He's a Bush appointee, after all.

Hmm, it was a shame really. Felt sorry for Obama, I was like wtf is going on. Could kinda tell he was the same.

Bush butchered the Constitution. The least Obama can do is start off on the right foot and repeat the oath word-for-word. I don't trust Obama any more than I trusted Bush. Is it too much to ask that in his first official act as Prez that he do it right?

Let me guess, you guys look something like this.

http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/rwhumungus2.jpg

actully if government collapses dressing like Lord Humungus is my dream.

that and say speeches like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TL4XZdyo3g

I'm deeply disappointed that no one else on this thread is terrified by the prospect of a giant atomic mutant Benjamin Harrison destroying Tokyo after turning Grover Cleveland into a cyborg :(


I might conceivably be slightly tipsy. I turn 40 tomorrow.

I'm deeply disappointed that no one else on this thread is terrified by the prospect of a giant atomic mutant Benjamin Harrison destroying Tokyo after turning Grover Cleveland into a cyborg :(


I might conceivably be slightly tipsy. I turn 40 tomorrow.
Happy birthday! Today is my birthday! We're the best people because we were born in January. :D

Oh, and I was terrified by the above-referenced prospect, so much so that words failed me. ;)

its just another example of a woman being paid less than a man for more work.

Hillary Clinton might be paid less, but does it really matter? She didn't agree to become Secretary of State just for the money. She's got plenty of money already.

Happy birthday! Today is my birthday! We're the best people because we were born in January. :D

Oh, and I was terrified by the above-referenced prospect, so much so that words failed me. ;)

Happy Birthday! I give you the gift of O'bama, your new irish president :hail:

It is called the Constitution of the United States. The oath has to be administered EXACTLY!

Indeed. Which means that every president who added something, like "so help me God", was not truly president ;)

Which I guess is a good thing for Bush. "I had not authority to do such things. Noone should have obeyed my orders. Not my fault they did".

*snip*

Moreover, let's take a look at ANOTHER part of the constitution, shall we, specifically the twentiety amendment:

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The 20th amendment states that the term of office for the president ends promptly at noon and the term of successors then immediately begins. Nothing about requiring an oath before hand. The 20th amendment, which supercedes Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, states clearly that Bush's term of office ended at noon on the 20th of January, and Obama's began immediately thereafter. No requirement for an oath is given.

Good enough for me. Obama doesn't need to retake the oath.

==========

The Constitution lays out very few specific procedures.

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.''


Emphasis by me. He may be in the office by tradition and law, but he cannot execute any duties as President without swearing this oath word-for-word. Until he does so, he has no authority. The Constitution specifies very few procedures so precisely, and it's important to follow those few that are spelled out if you really respect the law.

So, having "executed the office" already, he has acted unconstitutionally if he is NOT President.

Obama couldn't take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" something he'd already violated, could he?

So, best to hang tough. He's the President by the 20th, he took an oath with the same meaning, and retaking it would look like an admission that he had executed functions of the office without authority.

So no. He doesn't need to and he shouldn't.

==========

I'm kinda amused that the Chief Justice couldn't remember his lines. You'd think he hadn't read the constitution before :p

Kind of amused? Not!

Perhaps the Senate should drag him in and test his recollection of the Constitution in a verbal test without notes.

We're the best people because we were born in January. :D

I was, too. I was born at 11:57 PM, on a New Years day, many years ago.

I'm looting the Big Screen, a new DVD player, and SAW V DVD. Also several other stuff that I can sell on Ebay. :D

YES GET THE SAW V DVD!!!! Can you pick me up a copy?:D

Its too late now. Bush and military forces just seized the white house and is using the failed oath as an excuse to maintain power indefinably. This apperntly was the plan by justice Roberts all along. Mass riots reported in DC,new york and Chicago.
News black out getting this off cell phone text exchange before they black that out too. Get your guns America looks like civil war II is here.

Only this time it's the Northeast, Great Lakes, and West Coast that secceed.


Go ahead and do it again, if only to keep the far right from claiming his Presidency is not legitimate. Screw embarrassing Roberts.

She's got plenty of money already.
A few million less than before she ran for President.

Today is my birthday!
I'd wish you a happy birthday, but you'd just tell me I really meant something else.

Whatever...it'll take him all of thirty seconds, so why not, just to please the loophole seekers?

Happy birthday! Today is my birthday! We're the best people because we were born in January. :D

Oh, and I was terrified by the above-referenced prospect, so much so that words failed me. ;)

Happy Birthday!

He should have to take it again. If he doesn't I will critisize him. =]

Cheers!

I'm sure he's shaking in his boots about the prospect of your criticism...

I know I am. :rolleyes:

Of all the stupid "concerns" raised about Obama, this has to be the stupidest. Two words were transposed by the person administering the oath, not the person swearing it, AND he corrected himself right then and there. Are people really so silly that they would take this seriously -- whether its because they hate Obama that much or because they fear Obama-haters that much? Or do they just hate Justice Roberts so much that they want to keep rubbing this itty-bitty embarassment in his face?
Removing my Devil's advocate cap for a sec, I honestly feel the same way that the whole situation was very, very silly. It was even sillier that a major newspaper felt that it needed to not only write an article about it, but consult constitutional scholars about it as well.

I shall re-don my cap.

Technically, President Obama automatically assumed the powers and duties of the Presidency immediately after former President Bush stepped down at 12:00 P.M. EST.

I believe that Obama is definately considered president, despite the oath, however, if Obama were to,God Forbid, were to become an evil fascist dictator, he could use this as a lame moral excuse to be a dictator

Does it matter? We all know that he had his fingers crossed when he said it and later in private swore allegiance to Allah on a Koran with Osama presiding.

Uh...yes she can be Secretary of State. They worked all of that out and before you say anything, she's not the first to run up on roadblocks like this either. There is precedent so there :P

That precedent is constitutional convention. No, she cannot, as the pay level of the Secretary of State was raised whilst she was a Senator, the letter of law strictly implies lowering the pay level is irrelevant if it was already raised during the legislators term. However, there is a long history of appointments with and without a "fix" to the constitution

Bush butchered the Constitution. The least Obama can do is start off on the right foot and repeat the oath word-for-word. I don't trust Obama any more than I trusted Bush. Is it too much to ask that in his first official act as Prez that he do it right?

He did do it right. It was Roberts who fucked up.

I find it amazing that people think it's alright for the people's constitutional rights to be violated, but god forbid that the oath of office is a little bit off.

I'm going with the fact that it's Obama, and he's the first black president, that it's such a big deal.

He did do it right. It was Roberts who fucked up.

If you mean "whose fault was it?" I guess. But Obama DID repeat the incorrect version, didn't he?

So in the sense of article II, section 1, Obama did not take the oath exactly as written.

I can't help thinking that he would have got it right without any prompting. I wonder if simply saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear " etc constitutes an "oath or affirmation" in the Constitutions sense?

I didn't vote for him, but I do hate to break it you naysayers: the oath is taken privately beforehand and the televised one is just for show. He's still President.

Obama retook the oath.

White House counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts again out of an "abundance of caution."

The chief justice and the president handled the matter privately in the Map Room on Wednesday night.

Obama retook the oath.Yeah, I just read about it.
Linky. (http://themoderatevoice.com/25844/barack-obama-retakes-oath-of-office/)
(I'm looking for a more well-know, reliable source at the moment, but Google has failed me. As well as every other search engine.)
Coolidge and Arthur did the same thing.

The Constitution specifies very few procedures so precisely, and it's important to follow those few that are spelled out if you really respect the law.


Kidding, right?

Even the part you cited allows for alternate wording...

Yeah. That's 'precise'.

That precedent is constitutional convention. No, she cannot, as the pay level of the Secretary of State was raised whilst she was a Senator, the letter of law strictly implies lowering the pay level is irrelevant if it was already raised during the legislators term. However, there is a long history of appointments with and without a "fix" to the constitution

again we're talking "strict letter" versus "intent". The intent of the passage is clear, to prevent a congress member from having a hand in raising his or her own future salary.

The fix is consistent with the intent, by ensuring that Clinton does not benefit from her own vote.

well i guess this is a moot point now.

Bush butchered the Constitution. The least Obama can do is start off on the right foot and repeat the oath word-for-word. I don't trust Obama any more than I trusted Bush. Is it too much to ask that in his first official act as Prez that he do it right?

Because it's okay to rape the constitution, so long as you say it's name right?

Technically, he was president before even taking the oath.

So, no.
The constitution (Article 20) provides that the term of the President ends at noon on January 20th, so whether Obama was sworn in or not by that time and date, he became President of the US as of 1/20/09 at noon plus one second:

"Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

[REMAINDER OF CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 OMITTED AS IRRELEVANT]

Oh, and by the way, the oath is purely ceremonial. Obama's term started, and Bush's ended, as per the constitution, article 20.

well i guess this is a moot point now.

The issue has been settled. The question behind the issue hasn't.

Personally, I think that question was answered a long time ago, when the 20th Amendment to the Constitution was made (as Neo pointed out). An Amendment that changes details present in an earlier reading, effectively supercedes it in Constitutional terms. What Obama did wasn't necessary, and was done for the look of the thing. His earlier oath was constitutionally valid.

Because it's okay to rape the constitution, so long as you say it's name right?

I assumed that "Change" meant a return to adherence to the Constitution, as opposed to the insanity of the last 8 years. Am I wrong to expect so much from Mr. Hope & Change?

The issue has been settled. The question behind the issue hasn't.

Personally, I think that question was answered a long time ago, when the 20th Amendment to the Constitution was made (as Neo pointed out). An Amendment that changes details present in an earlier reading, effectively supercedes it in Constitutional terms. What Obama did wasn't necessary, and was done for the look of the thing. His earlier oath was constitutionally valid.

Constitutionally irrelevant really ... since the 20th would presumably allow him not to have taken any oath at all.

Yeah, I just read about it.
Linky. (http://themoderatevoice.com/25844/barack-obama-retakes-oath-of-office/)
(I'm looking for a more well-know, reliable source at the moment, but Google has failed me. As well as every other search engine.)
Coolidge and Arthur did the same thing.


Google had this article from AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over

Google had this article from AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_overThanks. The only one I could find was "3 minutes ago".

I assumed that "Change" meant a return to adherence to the Constitution, as opposed to the insanity of the last 8 years. Am I wrong to expect so much from Mr. Hope & Change?

'Change' could mean 'not ass-raping the Constitution'.

I'd settle for the occassional malediction as a small price to pay for that.

Constitutionally irrelevant really ... since the 20th would presumably allow him not to have taken any oath at all.

Agreed. It certainly seems like it shifts the perspective.

The issue has been settled. The question behind the issue hasn't.

Personally, I think that question was answered a long time ago, when the 20th Amendment to the Constitution was made (as Neo pointed out). An Amendment that changes details present in an earlier reading, effectively supercedes it in Constitutional terms. What Obama did wasn't necessary, and was done for the look of the thing. His earlier oath was constitutionally valid.
Actually, the issue is well-settled by Article 20, enacted in 1933, after the original bill of rights.

Article 20 was intended to clarify that the "oath-taking" is purely ceremonial, and the term of the "old" president ends on noon of 1/20/09 and the term of the new president begins immediately (barring death, which the rest of Article 20 addresses). Thus, Article 20 ensures there is no "question behind the issue."

I find it interesting that people who are questioning whether it was all legal and whatnot, mention the other presidents who restated it, and yet the count of previous presidents does not include their VPs. Obviously, we don't pretend like they weren't President until they regave the oath. Obama was President the second the time hit noon, according to law.

If you mean "whose fault was it?" I guess. But Obama DID repeat the incorrect version, didn't he?

I don't recall him repeating the incorrect version, but I could be wrong. He did end up prompting Roberts, which was rather amusing.

I don't recall him repeating the incorrect version, but I could be wrong.

I do, and news articles confirm it (http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9702800), too.

I find it interesting that people who are questioning whether it was all legal and whatnot, mention the other presidents who restated it, and yet the count of previous presidents does not include their VPs.
Neither of them HAD Vice Presidents, because Arthur and Coolidge WERE the Vice Presidents when they suddenly had to take over. The problem with Coolidge was that he was on vacation in rural Vermont, with no quick train connection back to DC, when he heard about Harding's death, so to make sure he was covered, he took the oath before his father-in-law, a justice of peace and notary public (the only time since Washington's first inaugural the oath has been administered by anyone but the Chief Justice: of course, when Washington was sworn in there WASN'T a Chief Justice yet!). Then when he got back to Washington, he worried about whether he had sworn the oath right (he and his father-in-law were going by memory without a text in front of them) and so he did it again, with the Chief Justice.

The problem with Arthur was subtler. When Garfield was shot, he didn't die, he went into a coma. It became evident in a day or two he wasn't going to come out of it soon. Arthur took an improvised oath to faithfully execute the office of Acting President, or some such contrivance: there were arguments about whether he was entitled to the President's salary or only the Vice President's. Three months later, Garfield finally died, and Arthur swore in again as usual.

Well, he retook the oath. Issue solved.

Happy Birthday! I give you the gift of O'bama, your new irish president :hail:
Believe me, I accepted the inauguration as my birthday present, very gratefully.

I was, too. I was born at 11:57 PM, on a New Years day, many years ago.
Belated happy birthday to you, too, then. :D


'Change' could mean 'not ass-raping the Constitution'.

I'd settle for the occassional malediction as a small price to pay for that.
I think you want the word "malaprop". "Malediction" means to curse someone/something or speak evil of someone/something. Sorry to be a dictionary pest, but that mistake seems to make your post mean something other than what you meant.

Well, he retook the oath. Issue solved.

Yep, so it's a moot point now.

I do, and news articles confirm it (http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9702800), too.

Welp, I was wrong. Not surprising.

Belated happy birthday to you, too, then. :D



I think you want the word "malaprop". "Malediction" means to curse someone/something or speak evil of someone/something. Sorry to be a dictionary pest, but that mistake seems to make your post mean something other than what you meant.

Malediction is defined as a curse or speaking evil of x, but I'm playing with its etymological particles, for my own amusement. It's 'bad-talking'. :)

Neither of them HAD Vice Presidents, because Arthur and Coolidge WERE the Vice Presidents when they suddenly had to take over. The problem with Coolidge was that he was on vacation in rural Vermont, with no quick train connection back to DC, when he heard about Harding's death, so to make sure he was covered, he took the oath before his father-in-law, a justice of peace and notary public (the only time since Washington's first inaugural the oath has been administered by anyone but the Chief Justice: of course, when Washington was sworn in there WASN'T a Chief Justice yet!). Then when he got back to Washington, he worried about whether he had sworn the oath right (he and his father-in-law were going by memory without a text in front of them) and so he did it again, with the Chief Justice.

The problem with Arthur was subtler. When Garfield was shot, he didn't die, he went into a coma. It became evident in a day or two he wasn't going to come out of it soon. Arthur took an improvised oath to faithfully execute the office of Acting President, or some such contrivance: there were arguments about whether he was entitled to the President's salary or only the Vice President's. Three months later, Garfield finally died, and Arthur swore in again as usual.

But they would have successors, no? They were President. We've always had a President. We don't have a short period of anarchy between 12:00:00 and 12:00:00:15 every four years.

I was mostly just being snarky. It's kind like how people argue that life begins at conception but if you ask them how old they are, they tell you the time since they were born. I find inconsistently immenently entretaining, as well mispellings.

But they would have successors, no? They were President. We've always had a President. We don't have a short period of anarchy between 12:00:00 and 12:00:00:15 every four years.

I was mostly just being snarky. It's kind like how people argue that life begins at conception but if you ask them how old they are, they tell you the time since they were born. I find inconsistently immenently entretaining, as well mispellings.Yes, yes, I realize you're being snarky.
In the Arthur case, during the period when it was dubious whether he was "President", Garfield was still the President, just a rather inactive one. In the Coolidge case, I do not know who could dubiously claim to have been President instead, during the couple days when nobody was sure if Coolidge was properly sworn.
However, there is the case of David Rice Atchinson, the "one day President". Zachary Taylor refused to take the oath on March 4, 1849 because it was Sunday and he had religious scruples, putting it off until March 5; his VP, Millard Fillmore, hadn't even arrived in town yet. Atchinson was President pro tem of the Senate (at that time next in line, not speaker of the House as the statutes presently set it up), and often jested that for that one day he was rightfully the President of the United States: this was even carved on his tombstone, if I recall the story correctly. Yes, I am a fountain of useless trivia.

Moot point, unless Yahoo News was lying. Obama had the oath re-administered.

Apologies if this was already mentioned.

However, to foster the thread's point, re-taking the oath was wise. Even if a challenge would never be heard, it could act like a kind of filibuster on the Presidency until it was addressed. We may wish for a nonpartisan tone in DC, but you KNOW there'd be a long enough list of those who'd love to gum up the works.