Is Obama was NOT President....?!

[vaberella]

Okay...maybe it's my own fault for listening to that fool Morning Joe and Chuck Todd...but what is this nonsense I hear that people are saying he wasn't president because the oath was taken incorrectly and that all executive orders done in the last 24 hours are worthless. What made this worse for me was that evil woman (aka Andrea Mitchell) was given so much air time to argue this nonsense.

On top of all that...he had to do it again, but why appoint Roberts?! Is he the only idiot allowed to administer the oath or could they have someone else?! I can't believe a Cheif Justice could do this and of course mess up the first 24 hours so enourmously. Is Roberts a Republican? It's mean, but that's the only way I could see this...~sigh~ It's as though for 24 hours we didn't have a President. Buffonary at it's worst.

[texastoast]

1. Oh, give it up, losers

When some puke asshole sues spends taxpayer dollars taking this to the Supreme Court, the argument that the intent of the oath is FUCKING EXACTLY THE SAME will win out.

these fuckers need to drop it. I'm starting to get pissed.

[ejpoeta]

2. you know, obama is a LEGITIMATE president. y'all should have been

concerned about chimpy, as he was handed the presidency by the supreme court. bush was not a legitimate president.

[treestar]

3. Gawd they are so full of BS

Obama said all the words. Form over substance. That's what these jerks have been about for the past 8 years.

What a stupid technicality.

Notice how these stupid technicalities are always strictly applied to black people. Even at this level. Chimpster and Clinton for example could move into the Blair House early. But Obama? He had to wait for the official date, just because it was the official date.

If the Chimpster's CJ had flubbed the oath, they'd be pointing out that it was a mere technicality, he said all the words.

[patricia92243]

4. He was officially President at 12 noon. I'm not sure if he ever took the oath that it would really

make a difference. I think it is more ceremonial than substantive. Having said that, it was still a good idea that he "retook" it. The ones that think he wasn't really President are the ones that think his birth certificate is fake. They are nut-jobs like Oxy-Rush

[Lint Head]

5. Every oath means something. Obama is swearing he will he

truthful and uphold the Constitution. As KO said yesterday, 'It doesn't matter if he took an oath or took a bath he became President at 12:00 pm on Tuesday.
:dem:

[vaberella]

11. Good point. n/t

[zbdent]

6. a simple reading of the Constitution, something that RWers hate to do

(doing research and studying makes one look "intellectual" ... which is against all that Repukes stand for)

reveals:

Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933.

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.

Now, it does say earlier in the Constitution that the person has to do the Oath before Executing the office of President - the oath, according to the Constitution:

"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."

not "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do ...", nor "... of the United States, so help me God."

(reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

[zbdent]

7. What's also rather amusing is their concern that Obama didn't get the Oath correct ... yet

Bush swore the Oath exactly ... and yet, he violated that Oath repeatedly ... where's their outrage at that??? BUSH ADMITTED IT!

[endarkenment]

8. why do you listen to right wing bullshit and then believe it might be true?

have you learned nothing about this sort of nonsense over the last 20 years?

[vaberella]

10. Maybe it's because OBAMA "listened to right wing bullshit" and redid the oath.

So obviously something was up...don't you think.

[endarkenment]

13. No I think it was nonsense

that the 20th amendment clearly states that he was president, oath or no oath, as of 12 noon, but that as a formality the oath was redone correctly. However, the oath was redone correctly, so there is nothing at all to be concerned about, even if you believe that the 20th does not override the oath requirement. So, in summary: oath probably no longer a requirement, merely a formality, oath taken. Now what exactly is the issue here?

[vaberella]

14. None at all...

but my asking is, if this is such a 'formality' why the need to redo it. Overall it went through the first time since Roberts met the correction while on the stage. Yet, they went to the process again at the request of people making a hoopla. I realize that at 12 noon he was Pres no matter what, however it must mean something if it needed to be retaken. This is the problem I'm having. He could just as easily sent out a statement or ignored the stupidity.

[endarkenment]

16. It was redone to put aside any possible reasonable objections.

The only objection left, and of course the false noise machine is bleating it out in unison right now, is that despite the 20th, nothing done between 12noon tuesday and whenever the oath was redone is valid. And that is simple idiocy.

As the question of was the oath correctly administered would have to be decided by the court the oath administrator heads, it would be massively odd for chief justice roberts, the oath giver, to rule that his own oath giving was invalid. Surely he would rule that, misspeaking aside, the oath was taken as intended regardless of any brain farts.

[sofa king]

9. No, that's a bunch of crap.

The 20th Amendment makes it clear that President Obama's term of office began at 12 pm on Tuesday.

However, Article Two, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the Oath must be administered before the President can "enter the Execution of his Office."

It appears that President Obama engaged in some executive business around 1:30 pm on Wednesday according to this timeline. Then he and Roberts tried again that evening.

So, if someone wants to start flinging poo over this, the only thing they can aim at are the executive orders signed by President Obama between 1:26 and 1:31pm. President Obama can easily re-sign new versions of those documents at any time and the controversy will be ended.

Note that if someone attempts to contest the executive orders signed by President Obama that afternoon, the question will probably ultimately arrive before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts may wind up having to recuse himself, which gives clearer heads at least an even chance to prevail. Or, he might not recuse himself and instead use the opportunity to make the problem go away permanently.

Oaths of Office have been administered in private before, and repeated, on several occasions. They have also been administered by people other than the Chief Justice. Lyndon Johnson was hurriedly sworn in aboard Air Force One by a family friend, Sara Hughes, a federal judge but not a Justice of the Supreme Court. In one case, that of Calvin Coolidge, the Oath was administered by his father, who was a simple notary public, in the light of a kerosene lamp on the family farm in Vermont. Coolidge re-took the Oath upon his arrival in DC, just to make sure.

Oaths of Office need to be administered in the presence of witnesses, nothing more, which I suppose might be one reason why no CNN videotape of George Washington's inauguration exists.

[Clio the Leo]

12. He's BEEN the President .... since November. NT

[RayOfHope]

15. Sorry, couldn't get past the subject line n/t

[WinkyDink]

17. You're asking if Roberts is a Republican? Are you new here? And by "here", I mean the U.S.