Well as has been previously stated the 20th amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>makes the wording or even an oath unneccessary.
Joel Brauer Only you can decide to be happy! The rest of life is in the details... On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]> wrote: > Article 2, Clause > 8<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States> > of > the Constitution states the President must take the oath "before he enters > the Execution of his office" > > *Article 2, US Constitution* > *Clause 8: Oath or Affirmation* > > Further information: Oath of office of the President of the United > States > "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the > following Oath or Affirmation: > > "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." > > According to the Joint Congressional Committee on Presidential > Inaugurations, George Washington added the words "So help me God" during his > first inaugural,[1] though this has been disputed.[2][3] There are no > contemporaneous sources for this fact, and no eyewitness sources to > Washington's first inaugural mention the phrase at all--including those that > transcribed what he said for his oath. > > Also, the President-elect's name is typically added after the "I", for > example, "I, George Washington, do...." Normally, the Chief Justice of the > United States administers the oath. It is sometimes asserted that the oath > bestows upon the President the power to do whatever is necessary to > "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Andrew Jackson, while > vetoing an Act for the renewal of the charter of the national bank, implied > that the President could refuse to execute statutes that he felt were > unconstitutional. In suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, > President Abraham Lincoln claimed that he acted in accordance with the oath. > His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court > in Maryland (led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 > F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. Finally, > Andrew Johnson's counsel referred to the theory during his impeachment > trial. Otherwise, few have seriously asserted that the oath augments the > President's powers. > > The Vice President also has an oath of office, but it is not mandated by > the Constitution and is prescribed by statute. Currently, the Vice > Presidential oath is the same as that for Members of Congress. > > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the > Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; > that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this > obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and > that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which > I am about to enter. So help me God.[4] > > > Jarrad > > > On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Lance McCulley wrote: > > Good point, Jay. > > -Lance > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Jay Wilson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> If, as stated above, the 20th amendment to the constitution states "oath >> or no oath".... then Article 2, sec 1 requirements for oath are no longer >> necessary and either a) the Fox reporter didn't do his homework, or b) he >> doesn't know how to be funny. >> >> ~Jay >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Don't get your panties all in a tangle; Wallace was laughing as he said >>> "We're wondering if in fact Barak Obama is the POTUS, they had a garbled >>> oath..." >>> What Wallace said was accurate. The garbled oath could cast a doubt, >>> because it was not repeated as is found in the Constitution (article 2, >>> section 1). Which is why Obama (and 2 other presidents) retook the Oath >>> privately. >>> >>> Jarrad >>> >>> >>> On Jan 22, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Lance McCulley wrote: >>> >>> The point of taking the oath again was to eliminate _any_ doubt, and try >>> to quell anyone's wild imagination (usually those unfamiliar with the >>> Constitution and it's amendments). But, the 20th amendment states very >>> clearly that Obama was President at 12pm on January 20th. >>> >>> I think it was very wise of our new President that he err on the side of >>> caution and take the oath again. But I also think it was absurd and >>> unprofessional that Fox News was attempting to cast doubt on Obama's >>> Presidency. >>> >>> -Lance >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Among others, Yale Constitutional Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar >>>> cautioned<http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090121/NEWS02/701219757/0/FRONTPAGE> >>>> that "Maybe he should do it again", just in case. President's Coolidge and >>>> Arthur both repeated their Oath's (in private) because of similar flubs, to >>>> be certain they were on the side of the law. >>>> And turns out Obama did >>>> retake<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/22/MNOQ15ENUR.DTL> >>>> the >>>> Oath privately. What was that about a Wallace "conspiracy theory"??? >>>> >>>> Jarrad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 22, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Lance McCulley wrote: >>>> >>>> If you were wondering how long it would take foes of President Barack >>>>> Obama to come up with a new conspiracy theory as to why he is not >>>>> legitimately our new president, you needed only go four minutes into his >>>>> term to have your answer. It was at 12:05 that an understandably nervous >>>>> Chief Justice John Roberts (and then Obama after him) flubbed the oath of >>>>> office, and on the basis that the actual words that symbolically bestow >>>>> the >>>>> title of commander-in-chief upon that man or woman who says them, some are >>>>> claiming that Obama might not technically be our president. Who, you ask, >>>>> would be so unclear as to the ways of the Constitution to suggest such a >>>>> silly thing? FOX News anchor Chris Wallace, for one. >>>>> >>>>> Strangely, Wallace, though he seemed to be posing his remarks in jest, >>>>> didn't seem to understand that by the time Obama took his garbled oath, >>>>> he'd >>>>> already been the president for 4 minutes, as the 20th Amendment to the >>>>> Constitution specifies, oath or no oath. True, the Constitution states >>>>> that >>>>> those who would be president must also repeat the oath, which Obama >>>>> clearly >>>>> had memorized, but then Roberts directed Obama to repeat his exact words, >>>>> and those words weren't quite right. But Wallace is certainly right that >>>>> there will be more than a few disgruntled Americans--let's call them >>>>> Oathers--who, fresh from failing to convince the Supreme Court that >>>>> Obama's >>>>> birth certificate is a forgery, are looking for a new way to say "No, he >>>>> can't!" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/21/is-obama-really-president-after-oath-flub/?12=1 >>>> >>>> -Lance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
