Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 4 months 22 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 1): It means that VP Biden can actually say he was President for a day.
Quoting Bok269 (Reply 2): From what I understand, he was officially President at noon yesterday, oath or not. The oath was a mere formality
This is correct, however there were rumblings from the folks at Faux News:
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace said: "We're wondering here whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States. They had a kind of garbled oath. It's just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts."
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7773 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
Quoting Bok269 (Reply 2): From what I understand, he was officially President at noon yesterday, oath or not. The oath was a mere formality.
Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3): Fox News anchor Chris Wallace said: "We're wondering here whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States. They had a kind of garbled oath. It's just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts."
The Constitution requires the oath to be of a particular phrase, and it got duffed the first time around. It's not just a formality - IMHO, it's the law. It is feasible that someone would raise the issue and take it to court, and it would be a distraction, so the reasonable thing would be to do it again and put the issue to bed.
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): IMHO, it's the law. It is feasible that someone would raise the issue and take it to court, and it would be a distraction, so the reasonable thing would be to do it again and put the issue to bed.
Yes, and no. "However, per the Constitution, Obama became president at noon Tuesday without taking the oath.
But, you are right that it could have become a distraction, so spot on, best thing to do was to put the issue to bed (and please no jokes about putting things to bed in the Oval Office)
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): The Constitution requires the oath to be of a particular phrase, and it got duffed the first time around. It's not just a formality - IMHO, it's the law.
While Article II Section I of the Constitution says "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."
It does not require that the oath be taken before becoming President, only before "the Execution of his Office"
The 20th Amendment ratified in 1933 defines the term of the new President shall begin on Jan 20 at noon.
There is no suggestion that Presidents who have assumed the office after the death of the previous President are not fully the President of the US from the moment of the death, even though they have not yet taken the oath.
However, this is the fine splitting hairs argument which constitutional scholars love to debate. In general - an amendment takes precedence over the original document in the law.
And which radio and TV commentators love to try and impress people with their ignorance of the history and facts.
But a good idea to go back and redo the oath and any documents signed.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5745 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3): Fox News anchor Chris Wallace said: "We're wondering here whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States. They had a kind of garbled oath. It's just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts."
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 7): There is no suggestion that Presidents who have assumed the office after the death of the previous President are not fully the President of the US from the moment of the death, even though they have not yet taken the oath.
However, this is the fine splitting hairs argument which constitutional scholars love to debate. In general - an amendment takes precedence over the original document in the law.
From my, I admit somewhat ignorant perspective, I'd see it this way: After the botched first oath taking, Obama was de-facto the President (because after 1200 Eastern on January 20th, he factually became the President as per the 20th Amendment, with or without the oath), and after the re-taking of the oath yesterday, which was done correctly this time around, he became de-jure the President (he's legally and thus, without any doubt, the President).
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
I might also mention that retaking the Oath is not unheard of.
Since George W. Bush and William J. Clinton had taken the oath four years previously, why would they have to repeat it upon the start of their second term? Or any other second term president?
Calvin Coolidge was administered the oath by his father, a Justice of the Peace, in his home and again later in Washington.
Bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2081 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 988 times:
It has happened before...
In January 1985 Ronald Reagan took the oath privately in the White House as Obama did last night, then again in the traditional Capitol inauguration for his 2nd term.
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 10): why would they have to repeat it upon the start of their second term?
Because the first term has expired and they have enterd into a new term as president thus the oath has to be re-administered...
[Edited 2009-01-22 05:50:01]
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5745 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2081 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
