Presidential Oath Of Office

[TheScout 10]

The two offices have nothing in common except the name. The 'President of Congress' or 'President of the United States in Congress Assembled' as he was variously called had no executive power to speak of and was more like a committee chairman.

 

Now if we just went back to the Articles of the Confederation all our problems would be solved . . . Don't have to worry about no unitary executive there?

[CalicoPenn 729]

If you include the Presidents of the Continental Congress in the listing of President of the United States, the answer would be Peyton Randolph who served as the First President of the Continental Congress from 9/5/1774 to 10/22/1774.

 

However, if you date the United States to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, then the First President would be John Hancock who was serving as the (4th) President of the Continental Congress at the time.

 

You could date the United States to the approval of the distribution to the states for ratification of the Articles of Confederation (which coined the term United States of America) on 11/15/1777 in which case the First President would be Henry Laurens, who was serving as the President of the Continental Congress at the time.

 

If you date the United States to the final ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which coined the term United States of America, the First President would be Samuel Huntington, who was serving as President of Congress when the Articles of Confederation were ratified.

 

On the other hand, perhaps the First President is Tom McKean, who was the first person elected as President of Congress after the Articles of Confederation had been ratified.

 

But then there's John Hanson - the so-called First President of the United States (mostly by his family and some amateur historians) because he was the first President of Congress elected under the rules of the Articles of Confederation.

 

If however, you date the United States to the signing of the Constitution of the United States (which replaced the Articles of Confederation) then perhaps the First President was Arthur St. Clair, who was the 15th President of Congress at the time of the signing of the US Constitution - 9/17/1787.

 

But once again, there's that ratification stuff that muddies the water - so maybe the First President was Cyrus Griffin, who was President of Congress when New Hampshire ratified the United States Constitution (the final ratification of nine states needed) on June 21, 1788.

 

For my money, though, the first President of the United States of America, as we understand the term as the Chief Executive of the country, is George Washington, and the oath he took is the one that is written in the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[SSScout 1615]

Well, now, somewhere it is we are getting.

 

Calico, you get the "atta" and Be, I give you the "boy".

 

So, pickers of nit, Mr. O is either the 44th, or 45th, or 52nd or 56th POTUS. So be it.

 

Recommend Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States".

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Call me liberal (as many have, with only partial accuracy), but I have no problem with adding incidental words such as the president's name and "so help me God." The Bible is a non-issue. It is not required, nor can it possibly be prohibited, since it is not a word that is being spoken. It is just a tradition, like the tradition that the president wears a business suit when being sworn in, as opposed to a clown suit or a bathing suit.

 

On the other hand, subtracting words, or changing their order, is an entirely different matter. The Constitution prescribes the words, so they need to be done correctly. The Chief Justice flubbed his lines, which happens sometimes, tried to correct himself, flubbed them again (I think he left out one word the second time) and President Obama had to make a split-second decision which version to repeat. So they fixed it the next day. I think the Republic will survive.

 

By the way, there is no inconsistency between the 20th Amendment and the requirement of the oath. The 20th Amendment says the president and v.p. take office at noon, and so they do. Article 2, Section 1 does not say the oath is taken before the president takes office, it says the oath is taken "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office." In other words, before he (or she!) actually does anything the Constitution requires or permits the President to do. Sitting next to the podium waiting for a ceremony to start is not one of the president's duties, so the fact that he was sitting there for six (or whatever) minutes, un-sworn-in, is not a problem. If he had been sitting there signing executive orders or vetoing bills before he was sworn in, that might be a problem.

 

Now, what about the stuff he did sign on Tuesday afternoon and on Wednesday, before the oath was re-administered? My guess is that the White House lawyers had him sign all of that again, or at least sign some statement that everything he signed in those 30-odd hours is ratified, or something like that.

 

Then there's the 43rd/44th president business. In reality, Obama is the 43rd president (starting with GW, as we do), but that issue was decided the other way a long time ago, when the bad decision was made to count Grover Cleveland as both 22nd and 24th president. So if, officially and legally, Obama is the "44th President", is it really wrong for him to say he is the 44th person to take the oath? Who knows? The problem is that he isn't really the 44th President, but that isn't his doing.

[TheScout 10]

Well clearly only 43 people have taken the oath . . .

[GernBlansten 10]

But from what I've read, zero have taken the oath as prescribed by the US Constitution.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well clearly only 43 people have taken the oath . . .

 

And clearly there have only been 43 presidents, including Obama... and yet Obama is the 44th president.

[vol_scouter 365]

Gern,

 

Whatever was said, both men were trying to say the correct 35 words. In my book, anyone trying to impugn the validity of his presidency on the flubs deserves your title of wingnut.

[GernBlansten 10]

I'm doubting the validity of any oath taken if it includes their name, and the plea for help. It doesn't comply with the Constitution.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

So Gern, you doubt that we have had any presidents at all? Good luck with that.

[SSScout 1615]

So howcum they only televised the oathing from the chest up? Did he have his fingers crossed??? Hah???? No pinky pull!! I double dog dare you to promise to protect that Constitution!! Hah!!

 

Come on, fellas, the promise was said, the intention was honestly expressed, the man is our POTUS. Enough already. Wish him God speed and give him our counsel and support. Send him a birthday card.

 

 

[fgoodwin 23]

No harm, no foul. Only an extremist would make an issue of this.