Needless to say that the Presidential Oath yesterday got flubbed. According to
Article II Section I of the Constitution, the Presidential Oath of Office should be:
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.
Here is a
transcript of the part in question:
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack...
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully...
Apparently,
some on the Right have said that Obama might not actually be President because he wasn't sworn in correctly. I wondered this yesterday, but I didn't think that someone would give voice to this absurdity; I mean, it was administered by a Republican appointed Chief Justice - and
he was the one who screwed up! Yet, last night,
the oath was re-administered out of "an abundance of caution."
From White House Counsel Greg Craig:
We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time.
7 comments:
Do over.
As if there was any doubt in the country's mind who is President, yet when the Chief interpreter of the Constitution and a man who once taught Constitutional Law agree to do it over, it settles the issue with no wiggle room for the Right to complain that it was wrong.
Thanks for the info - I am sure many have been set at ease by President Obama and Chief Justice Robert doing it over - just to be sure.
I do think the whole things is silly, but I'm glad they did the do-over. This is why:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, a president with bad intentions is elected and works with the judge swearing him in to say instead of:
"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."
this
"I XXX do solemnly swear that I will, to the best of my ability, execute the Office of President of the United states and will faithfully preserve, protect, and defend the United States and the Constitution."
No, I am not a Constitutional literalist, on the contrary. But look at how many suits have been brought to the Supreme Court based on strict interpretation of Constitutional language?
The do-over was a prudent idea.
Well I'm glad they did the "do over", just to shut the critics up. The "Right" very seldoms gets it....right!
I love how even a slip of the tongue in front of half-million people in 20 degree weather can become a partisan bash-party.
Lay off the kool-aid.
Quote from Mark Twain, American Writer and Humorist
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."
Quote from J. C. Watts, Republican Congressman
"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking."
President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts did the right thing while no one in particular was watching, and it gratified some people and astonished the rest."
Way to go "fan." I love the J.C. Watts reference. He's one of our best. I hate he got out of government.
Post a Comment