Is Obama really the president?

[Peikko 1,575]

Hehehe, I love it. "He's NOT the president, he didn't take the oath properly! *Stamps feet*. Why aren't you taking me seriously?"

Edited January 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mox 298]

Ohhhhhhhhh...NOW we're worried about the Constitution.

lol. Just...lol.

[doodlebugg 10]

Just to make sure all his "I"s are dotted and "T"s are crossed he definitely should retake the oath privately with someone. Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his dad so maybe it doesn't have to be a Chief Justice. Heck he might have already done it and we just don't know about it.

[NickD 202]

"In 2009 Chief Justice John G. Roberts, while administering the oath to Barrack Obama, incorrectly recited the second line, stating, "That I will . . . execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully". As Obama began to recite this line, he paused, whereby Roberts attempted to correct his mistake, but still inverted the oath's word order, reciting the word "faithfully" out of its correct place. Obama then repeated Roberts' line word for word, including the misplaced "faithfully."^[5] Several constitutional lawyers have said that Obama should retake the oath as soon as possible, as Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur did under similar circumstances."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_offic...e_United_States

Was also the advice given by a guess speaker on our PBS radio, doesn't have to be done in public, but should be done, hopefully by somebody that can read.

[mnieto 2]

[alienlovechild 75]

Not to long ago, wife asked, who is John G. Roberts Jr., our newly appointed chief justice I replied, head of the supreme court, and thinks torture is okay to gain information from alleged terrorists. Feel after these goofs, John G. Roberts should resign.

So CJ Roberts should be forced to resign because you don't like how he ruled on case about torture? He blew part of the oath so he should resign?

If you gave a hoot about the U.S. Consitution you'd know the justice rule on cases before them as the they please. Your opinion as a private citizen is worthless and misguided. Somebody must be the arbiter of what is consitutional and surprise . . . it ain't you. I don't know if any justice has been forced to resign or done so voluntarily based on their decision in a case. Only conspriracy nutjobs think this is some weird kind of plot and I have to hand it to you. You helped point out the first conspiracy theory within seconds of the swearing in of the new president.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If everyone thinks this a big deal wait till he actually starts doing his job he was elected to do.

[Caladan 19]

The oath is a formality, He was president at noon with or without the oath.

just a formality?

Yes, in this case. For good reasons, the Constitution mandates the transfer of power at a specific time on a specific day following the election. That happens whether the oath is taken or not. (We could make it a custom that the president-elect swears the oath on the night of the election, but he/she still wouldn't take office until the 20th.)

In the case of a death of a President, the transfer happens automatically, too. So as near as I can tell, the oath doesn't do much except symbolically these days.

Future Chief Justices should bring note cards.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

The oath is a formality, He was president at noon with or without the oath.

just a formality?

Yes, in this case. For good reasons, the Constitution mandates the transfer of power at a specific time on a specific day following the election. That happens whether the oath is taken or not. (We could make it a custom that the president-elect swears the oath on the night of the election, but he/she still wouldn't take office until the 20th.)

In the case of a death of a President, the transfer happens automatically, too. So as near as I can tell, the oath doesn't do much except symbolically these days.

Future Chief Justices should bring note cards.

i regard it as more than just a formality. these are powerful words, not just some trifling phrase.

[rebeccajo 14]

For all of you who were really worried about this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...ml?hpid=topnews

President Obama took the oath of office -- again -- on Wednesday, out of an abundance of caution, a White House official said.

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time," said White House Counsel Greg Craig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_offic...e_United_States

In 2009 Chief Justice John G. Roberts, while administering the oath to Barack Obama, incorrectly recited the second line, stating, "That I will . . . execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully". As Obama began to recite this line, he paused, whereby Roberts attempted to correct his mistake, but still inverted the oath's word order, reciting the word "faithfully" out of its correct place. Obama then repeated Roberts' line word for word, including the misplaced "faithfully."[6] Several constitutional lawyers have said that Obama should retake the oath as soon as possible, as Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur did under similar circumstances.[7] On January 21, 2009, Barak Obama took the oath of office a second time "out of an abundance of concern," according to the White House,[8] in spite of an earlier report that they were not planning to have him retake the oath.[9]

At approximately 7:45 PM eastern time on January 21st, President Obama re-took the oath of office in the White House.

[mendeleev 68]

Well, if a wing-nut brings suit, it will end up in front of Robert's court. Inasmuch as Robert's screwup was caught live on lots of TV networks, it seems to me that he'd have a hard time blaming Obama for it, and would give the President a pass on this one.

[NickD 202]

Not to long ago, wife asked, who is John G. Roberts Jr., our newly appointed chief justice I replied, head of the supreme court, and thinks torture is okay to gain information from alleged terrorists. Feel after these goofs, John G. Roberts should resign.

So CJ Roberts should be forced to resign because you don't like how he ruled on case about torture? He blew part of the oath so he should resign?

If you gave a hoot about the U.S. Consitution you'd know the justice rule on cases before them as the they please. Your opinion as a private citizen is worthless and misguided. Somebody must be the arbiter of what is consitutional and surprise . . . it ain't you. I don't know if any justice has been forced to resign or done so voluntarily based on their decision in a case. Only conspriracy nutjobs think this is some weird kind of plot and I have to hand it to you. You helped point out the first conspiracy theory within seconds of the swearing in of the new president.

Ha, Roberts doesn't have to even be concerned about me, but maybe the majority of the population of the USA, Obama, his peers in the supreme court, congress, and the fact that he made an a$$ out of himself in front of billions of people. Did he ever make a public apology? Obama did attempt to give him a chance to correct his errors. I personally don't want a guy affecting my life that can even recite a simple 35 word oath. And he was voted against by his peers about that torture thing. Still feel a 5 to 4 decision is worthless, should be 9-0. If nine cannot agree on interpretation of the law that affects everyone, then it shouldn't be interpreted.

[mox 298]

So much concern for the Constitution from the right. After 8 years of standing idly by, I'm glad to see you all starting to find a voice. Well done.

[alienlovechild 75]

I personally don't want a guy affecting my life that can even recite a simple 35 word oath. And he was voted against by his peers about that torture thing. Still feel a 5 to 4 decision is worthless, should be 9-0. If nine cannot agree on interpretation of the law that affects everyone, then it shouldn't be interpreted.

It's rare to get nine highly educated justices to agree on any single issue. Your 9-0 decision would result in no rulings at all due to constant deadlock. I'd rather not have nine clones on the bench.

So much concern for the Constitution from the right. After 8 years of standing idly by, I'm glad to see you all starting to find a voice. Well done.

Please list all significant Constitutional rights that were seriously eroded in the last 8 years. Let's hear your voice.

[mox 298]

Please list all significant Constitutional rights that were seriously eroded in the last 8 years. Let's hear your voice.

Here are the two most signifigant:

- Article 6 of the Constitution requires the US to adhere to all treaties, including the International Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory. Yet the President authorized the torture of numerous detainees, and the Attorney General called the Geneva Conventions on torture "quaint."

- Suspension of Habeas corpus when Bush signed the Detainee Treatment Act.

I would take the time to dig up and post more, but quite frankly I know what's coming next because I've heard it all before. But I'll tell you what I never, ever heard during the time that these actions were being taken: a debate amongst conservatives on the validity of the arguments for these actions. You guys took it all at face value, and never once asked for more accountability from the President.

So I say again: I'm glad you've found your voice. I hope you will continue to challenge the President, and I look forward to finally having a healthy, vigorous debate, instead of just blindly allowing the President and Congress to enact policies harmful to the Constitution and to the health of our nation. Looks like Obama was right about change. Welcome aboard!