Is Obama really the president?

[Jasman0717 9]

The justice swore him in again.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

The justice swore him in again.

i sure misread that, i thought it said at him again.

[alienlovechild 75]

- 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."

That's not a list of treaties I found but you probably referring to the Hague Convention. In any case, the numbers involved are pretty low and not on U.S. citizens so it's not that important one way or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_United_States

-

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

Again small numbers of combatants without uniforms so not POWs in the convention sense nor simple criminals subject the U.S. criminal law. If deemed POWs they could be held until the end of the war(s)- long time.

By violations of the Constitution you mentioned Lincoln, FDR and Truman were far worse but generally regarded as good presidents. If you choose international approval you may want to just kill the prisoners outright as they do in China with little effective international criticism.

The true test will be when Obama is faced with the tough decision of drawing strict lines of conduct on treatment of POWs or whatever you call them and prosecuting American soldiers who crossed the line. Another big terrorist act in America will really put him in a bind.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

phew...now the cold sweats at night will stop and I can sleep soundly.

[mox 298]

Huh. Well, I'll admit these are not arguments I've heard before. I stand corrected.

- 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."

That's not a list of treaties I found but you probably referring to the Hague Convention. In any case, the numbers involved are pretty low and not on U.S. citizens so it's not that important one way or the other.

Two things:

- The Constitution protects citizens and non-citizens. That was the whole reason for Guantanamo, to do an end-run around the Constitutional rights of detainees.

- So if one person's Constitutional rights are violated, that's ok because it's a small number? What number becomes a concern? 1,000? 2,000? 10,000? ???

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

Again small numbers of combatants without uniforms so not POWs in the convention sense nor simple criminals subject the U.S. criminal law. If deemed POWs they could be held until the end of the war(s)- long time.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Also, the terms of "the war" have been so ill-defined as to relegate anything like an "end of war" meaningless. The so-called "war on terror" is an Orwellian phrase, not a war against an actual enemy. It's also worth noting that the international courts do not recognize a "war on terror." These detainees are being held illegally and without representation. If any other country in the world were doing this, we'd be condeming them soundly.

By violations of the Constitution you mentioned Lincoln, FDR and Truman were far worse but generally regarded as good presidents. If you choose international approval you may want to just kill the prisoners outright as they do in China with little effective international criticism.

So if Lincoln did it, then it's ok? If FDR violated the Constitution it's ok? Truman shat on it, so it's not a problem?

I judge a President on his or her own actions. Don't tell me it was okay for Bush to trample the Constitution because Truman did it. That's just a downward spiral to hell.

The true test will be when Obama is faced with the tough decision of drawing strict lines of conduct on treatment of POWs or whatever you call them and prosecuting American soldiers who crossed the line. Another big terrorist act in America will really put him in a bind.

I agree. And I hope that both conservatives AND liberals will challenge the President when he makes decisions that we believe are wrong and dangerous to our way of life. I didn't see it from the Conservatives for 8 years. I'm looking forward to it.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Now this, come on get a grip sour grapers

[Jasman0717 9]

Huh. Well, I'll admit these are not arguments I've heard before. I stand corrected.

- 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."

That's not a list of treaties I found but you probably referring to the Hague Convention. In any case, the numbers involved are pretty low and not on U.S. citizens so it's not that important one way or the other.

Two things:

- The Constitution protects citizens and non-citizens. That was the whole reason for Guantanamo, to do an end-run around the Constitutional rights of detainees.

- So if one person's Constitutional rights are violated, that's ok because it's a small number? What number becomes a concern? 1,000? 2,000? 10,000? ???

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

Again small numbers of combatants without uniforms so not POWs in the convention sense nor simple criminals subject the U.S. criminal law. If deemed POWs they could be held until the end of the war(s)- long time.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Also, the terms of "the war" have been so ill-defined as to relegate anything like an "end of war" meaningless. The so-called "war on terror" is an Orwellian phrase, not a war against an actual enemy. It's also worth noting that the international courts do not recognize a "war on terror." These detainees are being held illegally and without representation. If any other country in the world were doing this, we'd be condeming them soundly.

By violations of the Constitution you mentioned Lincoln, FDR and Truman were far worse but generally regarded as good presidents. If you choose international approval you may want to just kill the prisoners outright as they do in China with little effective international criticism.

So if Lincoln did it, then it's ok? If FDR violated the Constitution it's ok? Truman shat on it, so it's not a problem?

I judge a President on his or her own actions. Don't tell me it was okay for Bush to trample the Constitution because Truman did it. That's just a downward spiral to hell.

The true test will be when Obama is faced with the tough decision of drawing strict lines of conduct on treatment of POWs or whatever you call them and prosecuting American soldiers who crossed the line. Another big terrorist act in America will really put him in a bind.

I agree. And I hope that both conservatives AND liberals will challenge the President when he makes decisions that we believe are wrong and dangerous to our way of life. I didn't see it from the Conservatives for 8 years. I'm looking forward to it.

Nixon said that if the president did something that was illegal then it was ok and not illegal

[mox 298]

Nixon said that if the president did something that was illegal then it was ok and not illegal

Heh...that worked out so well for Nixon, didn't it?

Sadly, I think many Presidents believed this. Only Nixon (and to some extent Clinton) learned a tough lesson.

[NickD 202]

This as many other news sources confirms that Obama retook the oath: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3399

"Obama retakes oath, really is president now By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Barack Obama wisely and quickly retook the presidential oath of office Wednesday night from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Why wisely?

Remember, Obama still can't convince some people that he's not a Muslim. Or that he's a natural-born citizen.

He certainly didn't want to start his first term in office with any cloud hanging over the legitimacy of whether he really was, technically, the president of the United States.

Roberts had slightly scrambled some words while administering the oath at Tuesday's inauguration. As a result, Obama did not say the oath, word for word, as it's laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

By Wednesday afternoon, legitimate constitutional scholars were saying Obama ought to retake the oath, just to make sure he was really president.

It was the proper move by Obama.

Spending a few minutes to retake the oath of office Wednesday will avoid four years of diverting questions about this issue."

Even Fox News reports:

"Some constitutional lawyers say President Obama should retake the oath of office. Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed it Tuesday, misplacing the word "faithfully" — at which point the president-elect paused. Roberts then corrected himself — but Mr. Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

A Boston University Constitutional Scholar Jack Beermann tells the San Francisco Chronicle a do-over would "take him 30 seconds... he ought to do it just to be safe."

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley says if the president does not correct the mistake, "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."

If Mr. Obama does retake the oath, it will not be unprecedented. Chester Arthur took it twice — once after the death of his predecessor — and again later during a public ceremony."

Can't find anything where John G. Roberts Jr. made even a private apology, but this is one guys opinion on the subject:

"There is simply no excuse for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts bungling the presidential oath of office to such an extent that Barack Obama might need to do it again, at least in private, to ensure the legality of his inauguration.

Roberts should be impeached and removed from office for this unforgivable error. The Constitution requires certain language for a presidential oath of office. Roberts blew it. And if he doesn't understand such things he should be fired for misfeasance of the first order."

Ha, even the judge that married us stumbled a little bit on the marriage vows, smiled, excused himself, and repeated it correctly, why couldn't Roberts do that? And from the news reports, Obama insisted on retaking the oath, NOT Roberts. I agree with the above, Roberts should be impeached. We are talking about the chief justice of the almighty supreme court, where you would expect, even the most minor things should be done correctly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The justice swore him in again.

Probably easier than giving the Talk Radio folks ammunition for their tin-foil hat theories.

[Fandango 1,439]

He was smart to redo it. As much as I dislike O, I'm glad he nipped this in the bud so we don't have to hear about it for the next 4 years...

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

He was smart to redo it. As much as I dislike O, I'm glad he nipped this in the bud so we don't have to hear about it for the next 4 years...

ita

[alienlovechild 75]

- The Constitution protects citizens and non-citizens. That was the whole reason for Guantanamo, to do an end-run around the Constitutional rights of detainees.

Yes, the Consitution does protect non-citizens on U.S. soil. The guys in Gitmo were picked up mostly abroad in combat zones. It's a jurisdictional question. I can't go to a foreign country and say, smuggle drugs and expect to get American Consitutional protection.

- So if one person's Constitutional rights are violated, that's ok because it's a small number? What number becomes a concern? 1,000? 2,000? 10,000? ???

It's called a balance test of whether there's a compelling government interest at stake vs. the right in question among other things. Who knows how many innocent Americans are behind bars right now? We could release all convicts but we don't as public policy and in the interest of public safety. The numbers game of hypothetical wrongs can get ridiculous. One nuke in NYC could kill a lot of people but it doesn't justify throwing every shifting looking character in jail to prevent it happening if there's no reason to think a nuke is going to explode.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Also, the terms of "the war" have been so ill-defined as to relegate anything like an "end of war" meaningless. The so-called "war on terror" is an Orwellian phrase, not a war against an actual enemy. It's also worth noting that the international courts do not recognize a "war on terror." These detainees are being held illegally and without representation. If any other country in the world were doing this, we'd be condeming them soundly.

Hmmm, I thought the SC was filled with mindless Bush puppets? If the war isn't against an "actual enemy" then Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are cardboard cutouts and our troops and allies were killed with paper cuts? Whether an international court recognizes a state of war to justify military action is

lunacy. The Kellogg-Briand Act outlawed war in 1922 but apparently nobody noticed in WWII or any other war since then. The detainees are in legal limbo because they don't represent a country not wear a uniform. I could claim I'm a freedom fighter and go around killing people in shopping malls but that doesn't make me a POW if I'm captured. American POWs never had lawyers in any war except for show trials which were illegal for uniformed soldiers. Hate to break it to you but there are poltical prisoners in various countries and most of them suffer because there's little attention given them because they are low on the agenda. Only Gitmo or Abu Grahib (in its day) were important because America is in the spotlight and it mostly a political propaganda campaign.

So if Lincoln did it, then it's ok? If FDR violated the Constitution it's ok? Truman shat on it, so it's not a problem?

I judge a President on his or her own actions. Don't tell me it was okay for Bush to trample the Constitution because Truman did it. That's just a downward spiral to hell.

Just putting it in the real world for you. We must be hell now because there's been some Consitutional infringments in the past. Slippery slope arguements fail unless you can show a pattern of decline and you haven't. Scary stories are for kids and I'm past that stage. Even I'm not going to say Obama will enslave us all because he does something and I scare everyone into believing me.

I agree. And I hope that both conservatives AND liberals will challenge the President when he makes decisions that we believe are wrong and dangerous to our way of life. I didn't see it from the Conservatives for 8 years. I'm looking forward to it.

You forgot about the Clinton years and his executive orders to extend his powers. Some on the right bitched about Ruby Ridge, Waco and FBI files on political opponents, Eschelon, military actions in Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan. . .. Clinton got sweeping powers about OK City bombing. The other party out of power makes the most noise- doesn't matter left or right.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Huh. Well, I'll admit these are not arguments I've heard before. I stand corrected.

- 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."

That's not a list of treaties I found but you probably referring to the Hague Convention. In any case, the numbers involved are pretty low and not on U.S. citizens so it's not that important one way or the other.

Two things:

- The Constitution protects citizens and non-citizens. That was the whole reason for Guantanamo, to do an end-run around the Constitutional rights of detainees.

- So if one person's Constitutional rights are violated, that's ok because it's a small number? What number becomes a concern? 1,000? 2,000? 10,000? ???

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

Again small numbers of combatants without uniforms so not POWs in the convention sense nor simple criminals subject the U.S. criminal law. If deemed POWs they could be held until the end of the war(s)- long time.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Also, the terms of "the war" have been so ill-defined as to relegate anything like an "end of war" meaningless. The so-called "war on terror" is an Orwellian phrase, not a war against an actual enemy. It's also worth noting that the international courts do not recognize a "war on terror." These detainees are being held illegally and without representation. If any other country in the world were doing this, we'd be condeming them soundly.

By violations of the Constitution you mentioned Lincoln, FDR and Truman were far worse but generally regarded as good presidents. If you choose international approval you may want to just kill the prisoners outright as they do in China with little effective international criticism.

So if Lincoln did it, then it's ok? If FDR violated the Constitution it's ok? Truman shat on it, so it's not a problem?

I judge a President on his or her own actions. Don't tell me it was okay for Bush to trample the Constitution because Truman did it. That's just a downward spiral to hell.

The true test will be when Obama is faced with the tough decision of drawing strict lines of conduct on treatment of POWs or whatever you call them and prosecuting American soldiers who crossed the line. Another big terrorist act in America will really put him in a bind.

I agree. And I hope that both conservatives AND liberals will challenge the President when he makes decisions that we believe are wrong and dangerous to our way of life. I didn't see it from the Conservatives for 8 years. I'm looking forward to it.

Nixon said that if the president did something that was illegal then it was ok and not illegal

For an out and out crook - Nixon was strangely honest about it.