Obama flubs the oath

[jim2100]

Both Chief Justice John Roberts and President Barack Obama stumbled

WASHINGTON – Both Chief Justice John Roberts and President Barack Obama stumbled slightly over wording of the presidential oath of office on Tuesday, providing a brief, awkward moment in an otherwise smooth inauguration ceremony.
Initially, Obama interrupted Roberts midway through the opening line, in which the president repeats his name and solemnly swears.
Next in the oath, which is enshrined in the Constitution, is the phrase "... that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But Roberts rearranged the order of the words, not saying "faithfully" until after "president of the United States."
That appeared to throw Obama off. He stopped abruptly at the word "execute."
Recognizing something was off, Roberts then repeated the phrase, putting "faithfully" in the right place but without repeating "execute."
Obama then repeated Roberts' original, incorrect version: "... the office of president of the United States faithfully."
After that, they were back on track. Except that the oath was taken five minutes late. Technically, Obama was already president anyway — the Constitution says the term of the incoming president begins at noon on Jan. 20.


Second Oath

As a Conservative I will criticize Pres. Obama when necessary, but this time it wasn't his fault. It was my man Chief Justice John Roberts' fault.

 

[CarmelHP]

How many Harvard lawyers do it take to administer the Oath?


Answer: More than 2

 

[cox7215]

Well if you check into it you will find that BO voted to not select Roberts for his current position, so some are saying he done it on purpose. But it was Roberts that made the miss hap.....

 

[dburkhead]

I don't think anybody who reads here regularly can have any question of my opinion of President Obama, but I've got to give the man props for taking the time to redo the oath and get it right. The wording of the oath is specified in the Constitution (other things, like taking it on a bible are traditional, but not Constitutional requirements).

Mind you, it's a very small thing, but credit where credit is due.

 

[4sarge]

I don't think anybody who reads here regularly can have any question of my opinion of President Obama, but I've got to give the man props for taking the time to redo the oath and get it right. The wording of the oath is specified in the Constitution (other things, like taking it on a bible are traditional, but not Constitutional requirements).

Mind you, it's a very small thing, but credit where credit is due.

We do not disagree often but in this case I think that he retook the oath only because he didn't want a possible legal question to arise later to derail his Presidency or place another cloud on his decisions. The pundits were already questioning the lack of the legal oath and as for the missing Bible, just typical Obama

 

[dburkhead]

We do not disagree often but in this case I think that he retook the oath only because he didn't want a possible legal question to arise later to derail his Presidency or place another cloud on his decisions. The pundits were already questioning the lack of the legal oath and as for the missing Bible, just typical Obama

Oh, I agree with your reasons on why he did it. However, avoiding legal questions by going ahead and doing it right rather than the more typical Obama "laws don't matter to me, promises don't matter to me, the Constitution doesn't matter to me" approach deserves at least some props.

I mean since it was Roberts who made the initial mistake in administering the oath, I could see him creating a chain of reasoning that could have Roberts impeached and removed allowing him to appoint a nicely liberal new Chief Justice. I'm not sure that Obamadoration has reached the point where that would fly, but simply ignoring the flub almost certainly would.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Freudian slip, anyone?

Also... Article II, Sec 1 of the Constitution specifies in part:

Barry said essentially the same thing, but he was not given and did not take that oath. Does this, perhaps, mean that he was not duly inaugurated? It could be said that Roberts made a mistake, but Obama did not recite the Constitutionally mandated oath. I will be interested to see if this point is raised again in the coming four years.

Blessings,
Bill

The oath is formality. President Obama actually became president about 5 minutes earlier as specified by the Constitution. The Constitution states the President-elect becomes President at noon on January 20.

Keep searching. Somehow you will find something to justify in your own mind that it doesn't count.

No, it's just wishful thinking. I'd like to see a President that truly respects and honors not only the Constitution but his own oath.

I don't think it will happen, though. There are too many who will vote for someone who would as soon wipe his @$$ with the Constitution.

Shameful. I'll give him credit, though, for realizing Roberts' mistake.

Blessings,
Bill

We do not disagree often but in this case I think that he retook the oath only because he didn't want a possible legal question to arise later to derail his Presidency or place another cloud on his decisions. The pundits were already questioning the lack of the legal oath and as for the missing Bible, just typical Obama

Oh, I agree with your reasons on why he did it. However, avoiding legal questions by going ahead and doing it right rather than the more typical Obama "laws don't matter to me, promises don't matter to me, the Constitution doesn't matter to me" approach deserves at least some props.

I mean since it was Roberts who made the initial mistake in administering the oath, I could see him creating a chain of reasoning that could have Roberts impeached and removed allowing him to appoint a nicely liberal new Chief Justice. I'm not sure that Obamadoration has reached the point where that would fly, but simply ignoring the flub almost certainly would.

Careful, David and Sarge... I said something along the same lines and... well, you can see above what happened.

I don't like the guy. I don't want him in the office he's in. I make no bones about those facts, but like both of you, while I may express wishful thinking, I try to confine the reasoning behind it to little things like the actual text of the Constitution.

Sometimes I wonder if I should get a passport before I say or write what's on my mind.

Reps to both of you if the system will let me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

The oath is formality. President Obama actually became president about 5 minutes earlier as specified by the Constitution. The Constitution states the President-elect becomes President at noon on January 20.

Keep searching. Somehow you will find something to justify in your own mind that it doesn't count.

In addition, I must contradict you. The oath is most certainly NOT just a formality as the use of the Bible is. The 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933, specifies the date and time. The original text by and intention of the Founders was that prior to serving as President, the elected person must bind him (or her-)self in an oath or affirmation to do the job for which s/he was elected-to the best of his/her ability, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Doing so on a Bible and adding the words, "...so help me God." are but two of the formalities of the inaugural proceedings.

As I said, I do not like the politics of the person currently holding that office, nor do I like the fact that said person is doing so, but my objections are on Constitutional grounds to the multiple irregularities surrounding him and his election, rather than to Obama himself.

Blessings,
Bill