Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Retakes Oath Of Office  
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html


Does that mean that all of the orders he signed this morning are not valid?  scratchchin 

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1516 times:



Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter):
after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration

Abely helped along by the President. They both had a senior moment.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter):
Does that mean that all of the orders he signed this morning are not valid?

It means that VP Biden can actually say he was President for a day.


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

From what I understand, he was officially President at noon yesterday, oath or not. The oath was a mere formality.


"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1506 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 1):
It means that VP Biden can actually say he was President for a day.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

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."


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1493 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1483 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)


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1470 times:



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3):
This is correct, however there were rumblings from the folks at Faux News:

It certainly wasn't confined to Fox News.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1444 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.


User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6001 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1430 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."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-was-obamas-oath-valid/
Is a pretty good legal explanation of why taking such a thing to the courts would be a rather difficult thing to do.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1350 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).


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1247 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.


User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1228 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.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Secular Alternative To The Oath Of Office posted Thu Jan 20 2005 09:59:36 by Duke
Newdow Sues Over Pledge And Oath Of Office posted Tue Jan 11 2005 22:32:14 by EA CO AS
Best "Out Of Office" Auto Replies posted Fri Sep 30 2005 08:17:32 by UTA_flyinghigh
Best Out Of Office Messages Ever! posted Fri Aug 12 2005 14:53:17 by BestWestern
Deep Philosophical Observations Of Office Life... posted Tue Sep 21 2004 15:39:26 by TWFirst
Obama Accused of Pulling Race Card posted Fri Aug 1 2008 14:46:52 by Flexo
Ouch, Obama Accused Of Back Room Nafta Deal posted Mon Mar 3 2008 18:18:53 by RJdxer
Name One Accomplishment Of Barack Obama (Video)... posted Tue Feb 5 2008 07:47:37 by JCS17
Obama Seeks Advice From Sec Of State Powell posted Tue Jun 12 2007 00:45:02 by 102IAHexpress
Post A Picture Of Your Room/Office posted Wed Jan 17 2007 18:45:23 by CPH813