by Damozel | It was one of several entertaining moments during the inauguration.
In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully," at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them..Beermann said if he were Obama's lawyer, he would recommend retaking it, just as two previous presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, did under similar circumstances.
"The Constitution says what he's supposed to say," [Constitutional scholar Jack] Beermann said. "... It's kind of surprising the chief justice couldn't get it right." (SF Gate)
Anyway....he's taken it over again..."And we're going to do it very slowly," he apparently told Chief Justice Roberts. Which is what they did. BUT.... OHHHHH NOES!
THIS TIME, HE DID IT WITHOUT THE BIBLE!!!!!
Well, that should settle the question for the looney tune fringe of the evangelical right. He IS the Antichrist.
According to the AP that Obama remarked that the oath was binding anyway, even without a Bible to swear on. Yeah, like the people who were worried about this in the first place are going to take his word for it. They even questioned the supreme judgment of Supreme Supreme John Roberts, who clearly thought the first go-round was good enough.
Will Obama's detractors demand that he take the oath yet a third time? Anything to shut down the wingnut conspiracy theorists. Not that they are the only ones who were --- or will be --- worried that he isn't legitimately president.
____________________
PRE-UPDATE/OATH RETAKING
I personally see no substantive difference between promising to "faithfully execute the office" and promising to execute it faithfully. I'd have thought that the intent to be bound by the oath matters more than the exact wording and that what he said is substantially what the Constitution says he's supposed to promise.
But some constitutional scholars have argued that when it comes to inaugural oaths, it's probably best not to let even an insignificant flub stand uncorrected.
Constitutional-scholar-Supreme-Court-watcher Jack Beerman suggested that it's an "open question" whether Obama is really president till he repeats the oath with all the words exactly where they belong. (SF Gate) Jonathan Turley -- my personal favorite among the high-profile law talkers --- agreed that it would probably be a good idea for Obama to retake the oath, though he didn't think there's a credible case for arguing that he isn't yet president.
"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Turley said. "If he doesn't, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn't meet the constitutional standard. I don't think it's necessary, and it's not a constitutional crisis. This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe malfunction." (SF Gate)
The Washington Post says that while most of the scholars they consulted agree that the error is insignificant, they think a do over couldn't hurt.
Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale University professor of constitutional law, said, "Out of a super-abundance of caution, perhaps he should do it again."
Operative word being "super-abundance."
The 35-word oath is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president "shall" take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office."
The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear 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...." (SF Gate)"
Of course, he DID take the oath; I saw him. We all saw him. I said to my husband, I said, "Look, Nick. He's taking the oath."
It was Roberts ---Chief Justice Roberts, the Grand Supremo --- who fluffed his lines. Well, if the oath was good enough for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it was good enough for anyone, according to me.
I mean, it isn't as if Obama said "I do solemnly swear that I will NOT faithfully execute the office..." or "I do NOT solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office..." Clearly, that would have been a problem.
This all reminds me of that fine old riddle, "How many Constitutional scholars does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog pointed out helpfully:
[N]o one appears to be in a position to pursue a legal claim that Obama is not the President. Even someone who voted for John McCain could not meet the test for suing. To be able to sue over this, Article III requires that someone would have to show that they had a personal stake in a correctly recited oath, that their interests were harmed by the mistake, and that a court decision could remedy that harm. The courts these days are fairly stingy about this so-called “standing” requirement — and no judges are stingier about this than conservative jurists who might not be so pleased — ideologically – with President Obama in the White House.
Second, there is no doubt that Obama has been elected President in the form prescribed by the Constitution. He was formally voted in by the Electoral College on Dec. 15, and the Senate and House, in a joint session on Jan. 8, certified that victory.
Third, even assuming that some judge were willing to bend or relax the rules, and allow a lawsuit against President Obama over the oath, there would be a variety of serious barriers to winning.
But I hope he'll retake the oath because wingnuttery never sleeps.
At Newshoggers, BJ said:
Say what you will about American politics, they are rarely boring. Less than 24 hours into the new administration and we've already got people questioning Obama's legitimacy because of the slightly-flubbed oath.
will we ever really know if Obama retook the oath, saying it properly this time, in private? Looks like we'll have to have a do-oer of the entire inauguration, just to be on the safe side. Otherwise, Obama won't really be US President.
At Balloon Juice, DougJ says:
More blogger response at Memeorandum.
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Inauguration Day Joys and Woes
Inauguration: Out with the Old, in with the New
Saudi King Pledges Money to Help Rebuild Gaza
Troubled Times for Consumers
Krugman on the "Voodoo" Bank Bailouts
"Hail to the Decider": A Daily Show Farewell 6-Part Round-Up
The Pardoner Commutes Sentences of Two US Border Agents
Inaugural Address to Focus on Accountability & "Culture of Responsibility"
"Calculated Madness": Destruction in Gaza & an Examination of the Consequences for Israel and Hamas (News & Commentary Round-Up)
A parapharasing of the oath---sounds like an attorney's comment, "complicating the obvious and trivalizing the momentous". Obama seems to be concerned about openness--let us begin with the basic (Obama, please produce the original of your birth certificate, so we can put this issue to rest). Please--this is important! I will mention this in every blog I make from now on and urge every blogger who is concerned with openness to do the same--it is a issue.
Posted by: Ron Russell | January 21, 2009 at 07:17 PM
FROM DAMOZEL
Um...whatever floats your boat, Ron. I'm satisfied with FactCheck.org's examination of the birth certificate. Somehow I tend to doubt that he could EVER produce a document that would satisfy you....
I think we should amend that requirement anyway --- no danger these days that we'll be taken over by Brits. Maybe there should be a long-term residency requirement instead.
Posted by: DAMOZEL | January 21, 2009 at 10:03 PM
This is what you call, BUCK NAKED !
http://surftofind.com
Like Obama said, the violation of one man's civil rights is the violation of my own. Protect and faithfully preserve the Constitution -hell, we can make the words up way better than any ignorant jurist can !
Posted by: Bill -check this out ! | January 22, 2009 at 04:30 PM