News Was Obama's Re-Taking of the Oath of Office Necessary?

[Lacy33]

Of course this is an emotionally charged issue, but I was wondering if the incoming President was already legally in office at 12 noon that day or was the wording of the oath really as important as to need take it again please?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html

 

[BobG]

Of course this is an emotionally charged issue, but I was wondering if the incoming President was already legally in office at 12 noon that day or was the wording of the oath really as important as to need take it again please?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html

I don't think misplacing one adjective really required retaking the oath. Did it change the meaning of what he said?

A little is based on precedent. Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge retook the oath for similar reasons. (Actually, Coolidge's first oath was in question because it was administered by his father, a notary public, instead of by a judge). Both of their oaths also occurred in the middle of the night with little preparation due to being VP when the President died.

Arthur and Coolidge oath blunders became nothing more than extremely obscure trivia. Of course, they served before TV news and bloggers.

Pierce "affirmed" he would faithfully execute the office of President instead of swore and Hoover (not Taft, who was the Chief Justice, even though Taft was President at one time) swore to "preserve, maintain, and defend" the Constitution instead of "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. Neither of them retook the oath (in fact, I think "affirm" is an approved substitute for "swear"). Inserting the President's name is optional, as well, and just gives the Chief Justice another chance to make a mistake like calling Harry S. Truman "Harry Shipp Truman". Fortunately, Truman was able to say his own name correctly and hardly anyone noticed Justice Stone's blunder.

The worst inauguration blunder still probably belongs to Nixon's 1973 inauguration. To reduce the chances of pigeons raining on their parade, they sprayed a chemical repellent on the trees that would discourage the pigeons from roosting on them. Unfortunately, the pigeons ate the repellent and died, leaving the parade route littered with dead pigeons.

And, just to be thorough, not taking the oath on a Bible has no impact either. While it has become an almost unbreakable tradition in later years, it wasn't unusual for earlier Presidents to use something else.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One can ask all sorts of trivial questions - like was Joe Biden George Bush's vice president for half an hour? Was Nancy Pelosi the Acting President for a few minutes?

Considering that this is a problem that takes a minute to fix, isn't it prudent to do it again no matter what?

 

[BobG]

One can ask all sorts of trivial questions - like was Joe Biden George Bush's vice president for half an hour? Was Nancy Pelosi the Acting President for a few minutes?

Considering that this is a problem that takes a minute to fix, isn't it prudent to do it again no matter what?

The answer to the first is the reason why the term of office starts and ends at noon instead of midnight. Per Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1821, the term of office started at midnight, but the President didn't have executive power until taking the oath of office. Executive power was just suspended for the approximately 12 hours between the start of the term and taking the oath. That was just his opinion instead of an official ruling, however.

Biden definitely wasn't Bush's VP since the terms of office don't overlap. The only real question is whether Nancy Pelosi was acting President for a few minutes. Reading a post by mheslep in another thread, Pelosi couldn't have the executive power of the President until she took the oath of office. Since Biden was already sworn in as VP, he would be the logical successor instead of Pelosi, anyway, but even he didn't have Presidential power since he didn't take the President's oath of office. No one had executive power until someone took the President's oath of office.

If Obama didn't have executive power until he took the oath of office correctly, then the bigger question is whether anything Obama signed on the first day official? If not, then Hoover's entire Presidency was meaningless and I guess we'd have to rescind the Great Depression.

 

[Lacy33]

One can ask all sorts of trivial questions - like was Joe Biden George Bush's vice president for half an hour? Was Nancy Pelosi the Acting President for a few minutes?

Considering that this is a problem that takes a minute to fix, isn't it prudent to do it again no matter what?

I didn't mean to just shoot out any old trivial question. I wanted to know if this had ever been redone before without spending hours researching.
Because if he was the first to do so I would have more to think about than the nothing I am currently going to think about it.
I very much appreciate Bob taking the time to share all this information and the pigeon story as my husband said must have been an omen.
Thank you for the help.

 

[BobG]

I didn't mean to just shoot out any old trivial question. I wanted to know if this had ever been redone before without spending hours researching.
Because if he was the first to do so I would have more to think about than the nothing I am currently going to think about it.
I very much appreciate Bob taking the time to share all this information and the pigeon story as my husband said must have been an omen.
Thank you for the help.

Actually, every President whose term started on a Sunday (except for one) has taken the oath twice: once privately to meet Constitutional requirements and again at the public inauguration celebration. Obviously, those aren't considered the same since, pesumably, the private oath was done correctly?

Zachary Taylor was the only 'Sunday President' to wait until his inauguration ceremony to take the oath of office.

 

[Lacy33]

Very, very interesting. Thank you for the education. Have to admit I posted in the first place thinking perhaps this President was being excessive for some reason and I thought to ask here on PF. But it has been very interesting to find out about the other President's too. Thank you again. Really

 

[CRGreathouse]

Of course this is an emotionally charged issue, but I was wondering if the incoming President was already legally in office at 12 noon that day or was the wording of the oath really as important as to need take it again please?

My opinion (as an amateur) is that Obama was president at 12:03 when he took the oath the first time, despite the slip in wording.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html#cnnSTCText"
Why go to the trouble of dotting the i's if you're not going to cross the t's?

 

[LowlyPion]

My opinion (as an amateur) is that Obama was president at 12:03 when he took the oath the first time, despite the slip in wording.

I agree. The substantial meaning of the oath was administered and attested to, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in front of what could not likely have been many more witnesses, without articulated objection, even from Republicans. Since the issue would undoubtedly become an issue for the Supreme Court however it might arise, the Chief Justice would have ample first hand evidence as to the intent of the individuals involved and compliance with the Law.

It seems that Obama handled it all with good humor.

 

[LowlyPion]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html#cnnSTCText"
Why go to the trouble of dotting the i's if you're not going to cross the t's?

To meet Constitutional requirements, no Bible is required.

Clause 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he
shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘I do solemly
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.’’

To retrieve the Lincoln Bible again from the National Archives, or to have used a different Bible would maybe have created more of a smudge in the erasure than just fulfilling the technical requirements of the language.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To meet Constitutional requirements, no Bible is required.

But they didn't even think the reoathing was required. They just did it to dot the i's. During the campaign, the crazies said he would take the oath on a Koran. What will they make of this? Do we need the aggravation?

 

[BobG]

To meet Constitutional requirements, no Bible is required.

But they didn't even think the reoathing was required. They just did it to dot the i's. During the campaign, the crazies said he would take the oath on a Koran. What will they make of this? Do we need the aggravation?

Heck, Johnson used one of the missals from a Catholic mass.

I can just imagine the panicked conversation when someone on Air Force One asked, "Don't we need a Bible?"

And no one on the plane knew; and they couldn't find one anyway ...

And, "Here! Here's something from a church! I found it on a table in the bedroom! Will that do?"

"Great! Let's get started. Uh, anybody know the words?"

"Uh, they're not in the book?"

"Uh, probably not. You handed me a Catholic missal."

(Jack Valenti, a political consultant, was the guy that had to track down the Presidential Oath. I don't think he ever explained how or where he came up with the Presidential Oath. Somehow, they managed to get it right - http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/kennedy/Oath of Office/oath.htm)

 

[LowlyPion]

I don't think he ever explained how or where he came up with the Presidential Oath.

One presumes there were radios in those days.

 

[turbo]

One presumes there were radios in those days.

Radios on planes in the 1960's? Easier than towing a telegraph wire, I guess.

As for the re-taking of the oath, with all the crazies questioning Obama's citizenship, it was probably considered best to take a "belt and suspenders" approach to the swearing-in, to stave off any incipient looniness. As for the use of a bible (or not), if someone takes a solemn oath to execute the duties of high office, his or her word should be enough, printed matter notwithstanding.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little surprised he bothered to retake the oath. Having already been sued for (allegedly) not being a US citizen, I don't think Obama should care much about some random crazy suing him over this.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm a little surprised he bothered to retake the oath. Having already been sued for (allegedly) not being a US citizen, I don't think Obama should care much about some random crazy suing him over this.

I think it's prudent. It nips that sort of talk in the bud.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think it's prudent. It nips that sort of talk in the bud.

It's not like the NeoCon bloggers won't have plenty of other things to be knotting their panties over, as Obama sets out to undo the past 8 years of the faithless efforts to impose conservative ideologies and beliefs on their fellow Americans.

 

[edward]

I think it's prudent. It nips that sort of talk in the bud.

There were already a number of wing nut bloggers and e-mails going around claiming that obama was not really the president due to the oath flub, So they had a do over.

Fox was all over it like flies on ****

http://www.videosift.com/video/FOX-s-Wallace-Is-Obama-Really-Prez-After-Bobbled-Oath

 

[russ_watters]

I think it's prudent. It nips that sort of talk in the bud.

Apparently not. I was just flipping through my tv and caught a little of a press conference with Obama's press secretary. A reporter noted that while he retook the oath, he did not re-issue the executive orders he issued during the day. That's a contradiction and it creates an opening for nuts.

It is never a good idea to kowtow to the lunatic fringe. Playing their game just brings you down to their level and you get covered in mud either way. It's easier (and propper) to defend an unnecessary action not taken than to create a new issue that requires you to defend an unnecessary action taken (why do it if it isn't necessary?).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This was likely done to avoid lawsuits ; a few minutes to avoid who knows how many hours, days, or weeks of nonsense due to Fox Noise Nuts, conspirarcy theorists, and any potentially legitimate objections. As they said, this was done in the spirit of maintaining an abundance of caution. Why take any chances when it was so easy to be sure?

 

[mgb_phys]

But it was a conservative judge appointed by Bush that mis-quoted the oath - so obviously a republican conspiracy.

 

[LowlyPion]

But it was a conservative judge appointed by Bush that mis-quoted the oath - so obviously a republican conspiracy.

That's my thought.

 

[russ_watters]

This was likely done to avoid lawsuits ; a few minutes to avoid who knows how many hours, days, or weeks of nonsense due to Fox Noise Nuts, conspirarcy theorists, and any potentially legitimate objections. As they said, this was done in the spirit of maintaining an abundance of caution. Why take any chances when it was so easy to be sure?

The reporter's question was: if it was prudent to retake the oath, why was it not also prudent to re-sign the executive orders and other documents? A motivated nut now has several things he could challenge instead of one. It avoids one (potential) problem and creates several (potential) new ones.

 

[Gokul43201]

The reporter's question was: if it was prudent to retake the oath, why was it not also prudent to re-sign the executive orders and other documents?

There were two executive orders signed by Obama during the period between the oaths: one requiring greater transparency in maintaining Presidential records, and the other tightening ethics requirements for members of the Executive. I doubt there are many Obama-hating nuts out there that are chomping at the bit to nullify these two Orders.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

 

[BobG]

But it was a conservative judge appointed by Bush that mis-quoted the oath - so obviously a republican conspiracy.

Then not a very good one.

If the oath were not retaken, as soon as an issue came before the US Supreme Court that might result in a 5-4 decision against when a 4-4 vote would mean success, the attorney could ask if there was any chance the flubbed oath of office might be used to argue against his point. The USSC would then have to discuss that side issue (with Roberts recused from the side issue) to decide if there were chance that might be relevant to the case before them. Just having the other attorney state he didn't anticipate using the flubbed oath wouldn't be quite enough. There would have to be no chance of the flubbed oath figuring into the case in order for Roberts to participate in the case.

Eventually, they'd hit a case where the oath would be used as an argument and then could decide one way or the other (you know there's no way they're going to invalidate every bill signed into law, especially since you have a precedent with Hoover, so you the decision is virtually certain). Once they ruled that the oath was valid and that Obama was indeed President, the issue would disappear and Roberts could again be sure of participating in nearly 100% of the cases that come before the USSC.

Good luck for conservatives would be for the issue to be decided quickly. Good luck for liberals would be to get a few key cases in before the issue is the decided. Obviously, once the problem was realized, coservatives would use the argument as soon as possible just to clear it out of the way, so the end result would probably be nothing.

 

[mgb_phys]

"Great! Let's get started. Uh, anybody know the words?"
"Uh, they're not in the book?"
"Uh, probably not. You handed me a Catholic missal."

A similar thing (allegedly) happened at the end of WWI, a tired and emotional clerk put the carbon paper in backward and the armistice treaty was typed back-front. Apparently nobody noticed and they still signed it.

 

[russ_watters]

There were two executive orders signed by Obama during the period between the oaths: one requiring greater transparency in maintaining Presidential records, and the other tightening ethics requirements for members of the Executive. I doubt there are many Obama-hating nuts out there that are chomping at the bit to nullify these two Orders.

I assume Hillary's cabinet nomination also required some paperwork.

 

[turbo]

I assume Hillary's cabinet nomination also required some paperwork.

Obama did not need to be the acting president in order to make nominations, and the nominations are acted on by the Congress, not the executive branch. I'm assuming Congress was properly sworn in.

Any problems arising from Clinton's occupying the Sec of State will likely be tied to Bill's foreign entanglements. Since she shares in her husband's financial gains, it is going to look shady when she intervenes in foreign affairs involving one or more countries whose leaders have been contributors to Bill's projects.

 

[LURCH]

I didn't watch the swearing in. What exactly did Mr Obabma say, in place of "...that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..."? I heard that he missplaced the "faithfully," but I never heard where he placed it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I didn't watch the swearing in. What exactly did Mr Obabma say, in place of "...that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..."? I heard that he missplaced the "faithfully," but I never heard where he placed it.

" I will execute the Office of President of the United States, faithfullly..."

 

[WhoWee]

One can ask all sorts of trivial questions - like was Joe Biden George Bush's vice president for half an hour? Was Nancy Pelosi the Acting President for a few minutes?

Considering that this is a problem that takes a minute to fix, isn't it prudent to do it again no matter what?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't ever use Nancy Pelosi's name with the (P word attached)...talk about a nightmare...OMG!