Real Oath Taken WITHOUT a Bible...

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I heard he said allah-snackbar instead of so help me gawd.

Did I hear a "admiral ackbar" in there ?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I heard he said allah-snackbar instead of so help me gawd.

Did I hear a "admiral ackbar" in there ?

Is he in the same Army as General Consensus?

 

[Triumph]

People act like the oath is some magic spell dreamed up out of Hogwarts Academy of Witchcraft and Wizardry, that somehow if you don't say it exactly right, the "charm" won't take and Obama will turn into a rat instead of the President. Give me a break.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Triumph
People act like the oath is some magic spell dreamed up out of Hogwarts Academy of Witchcraft and Wizardry, that somehow if you don't say it exactly right, the "charm" won't take and Obama will turn into a rat instead of the President. Give me a break.

The law is not very tolerant of exceptions when the instructions are so specific and exact, and especially on such an important issue involving the constitution.

You sound like one of those people who tell the judge 'what's the big deal, you slowed for the stop sign, that's fine', and are then found guilty.

When the constitution says Jan 20, it doesn't mean Jan 18. When it says the president must say those exact words before he's the president, it means those exact words.

Of course no one reasonable would see any substantive problem other than the letter of the constitution - but that is an important issue itself.

While I mocked that some right-wingers would love to grab onto this, the point remains that it is something that was a problem.

 

[Genx87]

I knew this oath thing was going to be made into a bigger deal than it was.
24/7 news cycle ftl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am sure this will please the "non-believers" of this forum:

Text

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

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

...

A Washington Post reader complained in a letter to the editor: "What could have been a moment for the ages was marred by Mr. Roberts' thoughtlessness. News outlets will report that the first words of our new president were "confused." Whether through design or an amazing lack of preparation, Justice Roberts's behavior was a disgrace."

And 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."

...

Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.

He's still president. He became president with, or without, the oath, by virtue of the clock striking noon on Tuesday. The taking of the oath is simply a formality and nowhere does it say that it must be taken with a bible.

The requirements of the office are simply that he takes the oath, which he has now done twice.

So, grow up, quit trolling.

 

[dahunan]

but wait.... is he really a US citizen or whatever that was all about.. OMG... yikes.. oh shit... and he had a quaran up his sleeve??

Is he the anti-christ yet?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am sure this will please the "non-believers" of this forum:

And you care, why? What, will god smote our nation now because a bible wasn't used?

 

[alchemize]

4 years of payback for Bush which was 8 years of payback for clinton which was 12 years of payback for reagan/bush which was...

Phew, get used to it....Obama's going to be regretting this transparency thing someday I wager.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am sure this will please the "non-believers" of this forum:

Text

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

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

...

A Washington Post reader complained in a letter to the editor: "What could have been a moment for the ages was marred by Mr. Roberts' thoughtlessness. News outlets will report that the first words of our new president were "confused." Whether through design or an amazing lack of preparation, Justice Roberts's behavior was a disgrace."

And 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."

...

Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.

He's still president. He became president with, or without, the oath, by virtue of the clock striking noon on Tuesday. The taking of the oath is simply a formality and nowhere does it say that it must be taken with a bible.

The requirements of the office are simply that he takes the oath, which he has now done twice.

So, grow up, quit trolling.

You are wrong. The Constitution REQUIRES the Oath of Office.

Link

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am sure this will please the "non-believers" of this forum:

Text

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

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

...

A Washington Post reader complained in a letter to the editor: "What could have been a moment for the ages was marred by Mr. Roberts' thoughtlessness. News outlets will report that the first words of our new president were "confused." Whether through design or an amazing lack of preparation, Justice Roberts's behavior was a disgrace."

And 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."

...

Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.

He's still president. He became president with, or without, the oath, by virtue of the clock striking noon on Tuesday. The taking of the oath is simply a formality and nowhere does it say that it must be taken with a bible.

The requirements of the office are simply that he takes the oath, which he has now done twice.

So, grow up, quit trolling.

You are wrong. The Constitution REQUIRES the Oath of Office.

Link

20th Amendment, Section 1:

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.

Actually, nobody can really agree on whether the President-Elect becomes President at noon on January 20th or if he becomes President when he takes the oath of office. Either way, Obama is 100% covered because (a) it is past 12 pm, January 20th and, (b) he has taken the oath of office twice.

edit: In the article you linked to, it discusses the controversy. Either way, my point stands. Obama is 100% president no matter how GTRabidCoservaphile wants to slice and dice it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I heard he said allah-snackbar instead of so help me gawd.

Hey! God serves great appetizers! Mmmm....Jesus chips....


(And yes this thread is FAIL - he only retook the oath because SOMEBODY would b*tch about it....)

 

[ZzZGuy]

Huh, as a Canadian I thought in the USA you had to have your hand on a bible or some other piece of religious literature to make any sort of oath.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Huh, as a Canadian I thought in the USA you had to have your hand on a bible or some other piece of religious literature to make any sort of oath.

Nope, the Constitution's two sections dedicated to the President's assumption of power only state:

"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."

(article 2)

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.

(20th Amendment)

 

[sandorski]

I heard it was the Fetus of a Virgin White Woman....

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am sure this will please the "non-believers" of this forum:

Text

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

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

...

A Washington Post reader complained in a letter to the editor: "What could have been a moment for the ages was marred by Mr. Roberts' thoughtlessness. News outlets will report that the first words of our new president were "confused." Whether through design or an amazing lack of preparation, Justice Roberts's behavior was a disgrace."

And 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."

...

Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.

He's still president. He became president with, or without, the oath, by virtue of the clock striking noon on Tuesday. The taking of the oath is simply a formality and nowhere does it say that it must be taken with a bible.

The requirements of the office are simply that he takes the oath, which he has now done twice.

So, grow up, quit trolling.

You are wrong. The Constitution REQUIRES the Oath of Office.

Link

20th Amendment, Section 1:

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.

Actually, nobody can really agree on whether the President-Elect becomes President at noon on January 20th or if he becomes President when he takes the oath of office. Either way, Obama is 100% covered because (a) it is past 12 pm, January 20th and, (b) he has taken the oath of office twice.

edit: In the article you linked to, it discusses the controversy. Either way, my point stands. Obama is 100% president no matter how GTRabidCoservaphile wants to slice and dice it.

Oh, I agree he is President...but if you look to the USSC to determine...the Chief Justices don't call them "President" until afterwards. The argument in the article sounded like "yep at noon he is President" but can't execute the office until after the oath.

While it was probably not necessary, I think it was a good move on both Roberts and Obama's parts to redo it just so there is ZERO discussion on the matter.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Love the "WITHOUT a Bible" in the topic line.

If I ever take an oath of office and someone extends a Bible, I think I'll grab it, pull out a pen, and ask "How shall I make this out?".

ok hitler from last crusade

 

[Bird222]

I would say that the 20th amendment takes precedence over article 2. And of course the 'bible' issuse doesn't matter.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Real Oath Taken WITHOUT a Bible...

This "news" fails to disquiet me.

 

[Xavier434]

<---doesn't care

 

[evident]

they didnt allow media to see it because HE REALLY USED A QUARAN ZOMG `~!!!!!!1111
/s

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am sure this will please the "non-believers" of this forum:

Text

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

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

...

A Washington Post reader complained in a letter to the editor: "What could have been a moment for the ages was marred by Mr. Roberts' thoughtlessness. News outlets will report that the first words of our new president were "confused." Whether through design or an amazing lack of preparation, Justice Roberts's behavior was a disgrace."

And 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."

...

Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.

All I know for sure is Roberts did not get appointed Chief Justice for his competence.
Doing a heckuva job there Robby.

 

[theeedude]

Strict constructionist flubs the oath of office from the Constitution. Aint that precious

 

[WHAMPOM]

Do we have grounds for Roberts resignation now?

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Actually, nobody can really agree on whether the President-Elect becomes President at noon on January 20th or if he becomes President when he takes the oath of office. Either way, Obama is 100% covered because (a) it is past 12 pm, January 20th and, (b) he has taken the oath of office twice.

edit: In the article you linked to, it discusses the controversy. Either way, my point stands. Obama is 100% president no matter how GTRabidCoservaphile wants to slice and dice it.

Seems fairly clear to me. President Obama's term began after 12 PM, January 20th but by the letter of the Constitution, he could not exercise the executive branch powers until he took the oath as written in the Constitution.

The taking of the oath is definitely not "simply a formality" as you first wrote.