Beavah 205 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Doesn't it just specify that the terms of the old President/Vice President end at noon? And that "the terms of their successors shall then begin." B Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Good Catch. Link to post Share on other sites
BrentAllen 10 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I guess it is wrong to point out any mistakes made by a certain person, but for what it's worth... More AP reporting: WASHINGTON (AP Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Barack Obama as president Tuesday in the first of what could be many important interactions for the two men of differing politics who rose quickly to power. The encounter was briefly awkward after Obama stepped on Roberts' opening lines from the 35-word constitutionally prescribed oath of office. The chief justice wandered into a verbal detour of his own. Of other interest... "Obama was one of 22 Senate Democrats to vote against Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2005 the first time a Supreme Court justice has sworn in a president who voted against him." Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 FWIW, my first reaction was that President Obama flubbed it too, not that this matters to me. So big deal, back to the original post. Yes, I agree that it contains nice words of good meaning. I'm hoping he can back all those words up with good decisions and progress for the country now that the party is over. I'll let his actions and the results speak for the guy. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 If the outgoing president is no longer in office, and after noon he isnt. And the president elect is not sworn in, then the line of succession would put it at the Speaker of the House, President Peloisi, I presume only if for a very short time Link to post Share on other sites
CalicoPenn 729 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 This would be an interesting assignment for a constitutional moot court for a constitutional law class. In reading the 20th Amendment, it makes clear that the term of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January and that their successors terms shall begin. It appears that a very good argument could be made that this sentence in the 20th Amendment amends the requirement that the President shall take the oath of office before he enter on the execution of his office. The 20th Amendment very specifically states, with no requirement of an oath of office, that the new President's and Vice President's term shall begin at noon on the 20th day of January. If this is the case, this makes the oath of office in Article II, Section 1 purely ceremonial now. So what this all boils down to is that precisely at noon on the 20th day of January, the President-elect becomes President. Hypothetically, had Barack Obama died between noon and the the reciting of the Oath of Office, Joe Biden, whether he had taken an oath of office or not (and there is no requirement anywhere that the VP do so at all anyway - more argument that the oath is now strictly ceremonial), would have become not the 44th President, but the 45th President. Barack Obama would still be considered the 44th President. As for who would have been President had the President-elect died before noon on the 20th, the simple answer would be the Vice-President elect - but its a little more complicated. That simplicity is only true if the President-elect dies after being chosen by the Electoral College. If he had died between the election and the meeting of the electoral college, and the electoral college still gives him the office, the Vice President-elect would serve as an acting President, until a new President could be chosen. Lastly, I took the pause by Obama to be a stop because he knew what he just heard was wrong and was trying to decide how to proceed - repeat what he heard, or say what it should have been - it appears he had decided to just repeat what he heard while Justice Roberts realized his error and started to correct himself. The first fumble is rather understandable though - I've found that most people find an oath's rythym to be more natural to our ears and thoughts as "I, (stated name), (pause for next section then repeat) "do solemly swear that I will" than the "I, (stated name), do solemnly swear that I will" (with no pause & repeat) method. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 "That simplicity is only true if the President-elect dies after being chosen by the Electoral College." But wouldn't he technically not be President-elect until after the Electoral College votes are counted? So it is a bit more simple. Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 After careful review of the endless replays of the oath flub, I have come to the conclusion that Obama had flustered Roberts by rushing the first phrase. Then Roberts screwed up the second phrase and Obama caught it, knew it was wrong, waited a pregnant pause while trying to figure out what to do, then decided to follow Roberts who also realized his faux paux and tried to salvage any dignity he had left. This left the impression that both had memorized the oath so well, that when Obama rushed Roberts, it tripped him up. I blame Obama. IMPEACH!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I think Roberts ought to have started "I do solemnly swear or affirm...."; the authors of the constitution knew how to write "I (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm)...", but they didn't write it that way. Link to post Share on other sites
BadenP 93 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The swearing in is nothing more than a formality not a legality, as of noon Obama was automatically the president, period, read your civics books. Gern I think the comment you made in your last post was inappropriate to say the least and in bad taste, grow up. Link to post Share on other sites
SR540Beaver 116 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 BP, lighten up a little. Gern's comment was a joke. There is however a concerted loony right wingnut movement to find any reason possible to deny Obama the Presidency. One of the most popular threads on Sean Hannity's forum has over 7000 posts concerning the birth certificate conspiracy theory. The first such thread was closed after thousands of posts and the current one allowed because so many of the posters believed it to be a legitimate cause. This was all before the man even began his term of office. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I agree with SR540Beaver. Yesterday, this was minutes after he took the Oath, I heard comments about how missing the 12noon deadline violates the Constitution thus disqualifying Obama. I advised the individuals to run and pay a retainer to an attorney as quickly as they could. And then start writing their book - they could make millions. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2777 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 >>One of the most popular threads on Sean Hannity's forum has over 7000 posts concerning the birth certificate conspiracy theory. Link to post Share on other sites
Beavah 205 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yah, Eagledad, what rock have you been hidin' under? The claim is that Obama is not an American citizen. He's black, eh, so he must have been born in Africa. Only us good white folk are truly natural American citizens. Now of course, Obama has a birth certificate from Hawaii, and even posted it on his web site to satisfy folks. They of course then claimed it must be a forgery, a computer photoshop job, it doesn't look like real embossing, etc. Obama then produced the birth certificate for media folks, and the Secretary of State of Hawaii confirmed the presence and authenticity of the original. There was one nutjob who filed suit claiming both Obama and McCain weren't eligible to be president because they weren't natural born citizens (McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone). That was summarily dismissed. Older folks will remember a suit claiming Goldwater wasn't eligible because he was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state. The only thing a bit disheartening is that the bogus claims about Obama have gotten as much play as they have. Lingerin' racism ain't quite dead, eh? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp Beavah Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yes, my last comment was in jest. However, there is a ring of truth to it. The right wing scream machine is going to use every little misstep and misspeak to try to build a case for impeachment. Its all they got, so can you really blame them? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now