Cornell law professor analyzes the oath "controversy"

[pokerfan]

Interesting for the law geeks out there...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090126.html">When Did Barack Obama Officially Become Eligible to Act as President? What the Oath "Do-Over" Reveals About Legal Interpretation

[MADem]

1. It IS interesting. And a shame that Roberts managed to fuck it up.

In the military, the "proof" of your correct oath is the document you sign after you take it, that has the oath written on it.

[TWiley]

20. I still think Roberts did it on purpose ...... TWICE

Maybe not a legal technicality, but the absense of the bible during the last oath has right wingers seething. I absolutely think Roberts knew that.

Lets see.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Goes to administer a 35 word oath to the President of the United States for the second time
oops, I forgot to bring the bible !

[MADem]

25. There comes a point when Roberts comes off as STOOOPID.

He's been humiliated.

He does look stupid.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. Interesting that "so help me God" is not in

the Constitution. I did not know that. That addition makes every president who has said it not sworn in to the "letter of the law."

Chew on that one, RW!

[endarkenment]

5. The only reference to a god in the constitution is the date at the end

which is written using 'in the year of our lord' terminology that was common practice at the time. The oath itself, with its option of swearing or affirming is an explicit demonstration of the secular intent of the authors.

[terisan]

13. Unfortunately Obama is the 1st prez to ask the Chief Justice to change oath to add "so help you god"

Roberts acceded to this request thus altering the Constitutional pledge to include a religious reference.

Other presidents just added their own words: so help me god.

The religious right is delighted and takes it as evidence that Obama is on their side and against separation of church and state.

Moreover, millions of Americans now believe that the official oath includes the reference to god.

[Seeking Serenity]

26. Not exactly true.

Chief justices have been adding the part "so help me God" at the end of the oath for a long time now.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v1yRLGzB4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC5vd_TxDuw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6VZAuVezuk&feature=related

Roberts was the first to phrase it in the form of a question.

[Soylent Brice]

19. yup

and the fact that there was no "under god" in the original pledge of allegiance either.

[MADem]

24. Fun fact: There was no "of the United States of America" either.

They threw it in because they were afraid all those Mick, Polack and Eye-tal-yan little ankle biters would assume that "the flag" meant the flag of their fathers...and mothers.

PC run amok!!!!

[On the Road]

3. That's a Good Article

I love reading lawyers who know how to elucidate legal points with such clarity.

[TahitiNut]

10. I agree.

For years, in the 50s and 60s, I enjoyed reading Supreme Court opinions (all sides) merely because they demonstrated an articulation of principles and values and the logic with which they arrived at conclusions. It was, I thought, a fresh of breath air to read intelligent and well-structured arguments regarding issues of import -- something rarely seen in everyday life.

[ThomWV]

4. What a pleasant thing to read. Thank you very much and here's a K&R for it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I notice there's no talk about Joe Biden.

He made a minor flub during his oath and nobody said a thing.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. Further confirmation that the flubbed oath is nothing but a tempest in a teapot

but does anyone here believe that a Cornell law professor's interpretation will have one iota of influence on the chowderheads who cling to this story as though it's going to bring them salvation?

[Lucian]

8. I don't understand why they add "so help me God" at the end of the Oath...

when it's not even in the fucking Constitution.

[pokerfan]

11. There's a long entry on wiki

The phrase "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President. Although the phrase is mandatory in oaths, the said Act also allows for the option that the phrase to be omitted by the officer, in which case it would be called an affirmation instead of an oath. Quote: "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."<26> In contrast, the oath of the President is the only oath specified in the Constitution, which is silent concerning the use of the closing phrase "So help me God", though also allowing for the optional use as an affirmation. In practice, however, most Presidents have opted to take the oath (rather than an affirmation), to use a Bible to do so, and also to close the oath with the customary phrase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#.22So_help_me_God.22">read the rest

[Lucian]

17. Adding "So help me God" in the Presidential Oath..

even though it isn't in the Constitution, wouldn't that make the Oath null and void since you're adding to the wording?

[pokerfan]

21. same argument can be applied to the practice of inserting the President's name

after the word "I" and before "do solemnly swear." Strictly speaking, that is an even greater change in that it inserts words into the middle of the oath.

As the article explained, I guess the metric (as it is so often in law) is determining what is considered reasonable as opposed to what is textual.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. For the same inane reason they added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance.

I. E. to appease the spirits...? :sarcasm:

[Lucian]

16. If I were to be sworn in as President (will never happen),

I would refuse to say "so help me God". Adding that phrase, to me, seems like the government is advocating Christianity over any other religion. Can you imagine how people would freak out if someone said "so help me Buddha" or "so help me Gaia"?

[TahitiNut]

14. It's apparently thought to be a tradition begun by George Washington.

While I'm skeptical, I don't quibble with whatever the individual may regard as the expression of the highest level of commitment may be for them.

[Aristus]

18. I'm a Christian, but if I were ever to be President, I wouldn't swear on a Bible,

or even say the word "swear". I would affirm the oath. Then, if I had some right-wing dominionist justice administering the oath try to trick me by saying "So help you God?", I would respond simply: "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice."

The Bible states very clearly that one must not swear by God, or the moon, or the stars, or anything else, but merely to say "I will", and then do it.

I wonder how many right-wing so-called "Christians" know that one?

[pokerfan]

22. So help me, O Great Noodly One!

[Aristus]

23. Yep. Nothing like a noodly appendage when you need a little help!

:rofl:

Thanks! I needed that!...

[BrklynLiberal]

9. That explanation of "textualism" and Robert's ideas on the matter,

would make good fodder for a conspiracy theory that Roberts did it on purpose to deny President Obama his rightful authority.

[pokerfan]

15. oh yeah

The freepers went there immediately. :rofl:

Now they're arguing that the retaking isn't valid because he didn't put his hand on a bible. :banghead: