Obama retakes oath, without Bible.
Posted on: January 22, 2009 - 6:39am
Offline
Obama retakes oath, without Bible.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
I wonder if he said the non-obligatory "So help me gawd" the second time.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
I know and since it was read correctly this time, that oath becomes the offical one and not the first time.
I love it, it wont get the air time it should, but it is a start. It was perfectly legal and Constitutional. You dont have to swear on a bible and you dont have to say "So Help Me God".
It is encouraging to see this on such a high scale, if all here drill this fact into their local media, local papers and other non-atheist boards, More and more people will be aware of the Constitution.
It's not just for atheists, it is all that are citizens. If a Muslim or Jew gets appointed to the Supreme Court, by a President, they do not have to swear in on a bible. If they run for President and convince enough voters to vote for them, they do not have to swear to Jesus.
It was great to see him do that.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The oath is needless - at noon on 1/20, Obama could have said "neener,neener" on a copy of USA Today and still have been President. Constitution doesn't require the oath (though it includes the language).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
To be honest with you, although it is provable that you don't have to swear on a holy book, much less to a deity, what language in the Constitution says the oath itself is optional?
I don't get that impression at all. Every president, congress person, and supreme court justice has recited the oath, not to mention military personell, mayors police officers.....ect ect ect.
When you take a public office, the oaths may change wording as far as to position from state to state and position taken, but they do follow the modle in the Constitution and even newly naturalized citizens are sworn in.
I am not saying you are wrong, but where is your precidence in judicial and Constitutional history that oaths are not required to recite to hold office?
Personally I have no problem with oaths as long as they are religion neutral. Even when you fill out a job aplication you are signing it with the understanding that the information on it is true, and that you are basically promising the business owner to do the best job you can. I don't have a problem with people taking oaths to hold office. But I don't understand where you think reciting it, even without the voluntary, not manditory, mention of god, is not required.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
20th Amendment
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission.
Nowhere does it say an oath has to be taken.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yah, the oath does not affect whether he is president or not. Obama is president by the consent of the governed, not because he got the words in the right order.
Actually, I think that it would have been amusing to see someone try to challenge the inauguration on that ground. Think about it for a second, what is the appropriate jurisdiction for that challenge? Really, this is one of those things that has never come up before, so it is likely that new rules would have to be made.
Even so, the only place that seems likely is the Roberts court. Some how, I suspect that the Chief Justice would not be amused.
Still, I doubt that anyone will care about the error as late as next week. For those of you who might not have a clue, Obama just happened to be inaugurated on the 40th anniversary of Niel Armstrong taking the first step on the moon. And guess what? Armstrong flubbed his line as well.
He was supposed to say “That is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind”. What he said was “one small step for man” with no indefinite article. Does anybody really give a shit?
=
That is tottally weak as an argument. If an oath is optional, then it would have made sense for them to be specific before the written oath in the Constitution to say "optional". I think it was understood at the time, that you had to recite those words, otherwise why include them in a LAW DOCUMENT at all.
I think your reading too much into that. To back that up, you'd have to find Supreme Court precidence where someone sued to take office without taking the oath where the court sided with them, I doubt you can find that in our history.
We even in court as mere witnesses in court have to at a minimum, even if we don't swear to a god or on a bible have to swear to tell the truth, that is an oath, that if we dont take, can be held for contempt of court.
I wouldn't recomend you test that theory and I doubt any court would side with you if you refused to take that oath.
So it seems you are reading into the Constitution what you want to see, much like some like to claim that taxes are voluntary.
By vertiue of the oath being there, I think it goes without saying because it is written in our Consitution, it is expected that you recite it.
What I am looking for from you, if you have a case are spacific words, "You don't have to recite the oath". You are pointing out what is not there, not what is.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I didn't make an argument because no argument is necessary. It is what it is. Amendments change things, remember? Do you believe the three-fifths rule (that says blacke are 3/5 of a person when counting for the House of Representatives) still holds in spite of the 15th amendmemt? After all, it's still in the body of the Constitution as well.
As for why there is an affirmation (the affirmation doesn't include God, btw), they wanted to lend some formality to the orffice, perhaps? A little pomp and circumstance like they had in England?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, speaking of weak arguments, the constitution does actually say that the oath is optional before the actual text of the oath:
The key being the words “Or Affirmation”.
That was put in there specifically because there are people who believe that they cannot swear an oath to any authority less than god. For example, Quakers. Richard Nixon was a Quaker. He swore the oath at both of his inaugurations as an option that he was not constitutionally bound to perform.
=
You guys are missing my point. An oath is merely an oral contract, and sure, the word order shouldn't matter or even the words used. But you still have to say something to the effect that you will keep the promis you make. In court you basically have to say, "I promis to tell the truth".
I have no problem with that. Rental contracts are written oaths in where you promis to give the owner a certain amount of money per month. Certainly you are not forced to sign that contract, but the owner doesnt have to rent the appartment to you if you dont.
The oath of office is written in our Consitution for a reason and I do not think it was put there for decoration.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So you do believe the 3/5 rule still applies? It wasn't put in the Constitution for decoration either.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You just got bitch slapped by your own quote "SHALL".
You are making the optional varients the issue claiming they dont have to say anything at all and are defied by your own quote, not to mention that
They were not given the option of saying nothing, they were given the option of HOW they made their promis, but by vertue of those words, they were duty bound to say something in some way to promis to defend the Constitution.
Or am I lying to myself and that is just a delusional quote you threw in and those words are not in the Constitution?
Just ignor my cockyness. As seriously as I take the very Law being the Constitution that protects my right to say that Jesus is fiction, I was simply pointing out the flaw in your conclusion.
"Swear or Affirm" does not translate to "you dont have to say anything at all". You are merely given the option of your word choice.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
But the 20th amendment does not mention the oath. It is a convention, not a requirement.
As I said, the Constitution also says blacks are 3/5 of a person - do you still think that's correct?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Aw, man - that's awesome!
Impromptu oaths FTW!
There was a law professor on NPR yesterday who said the argument of whether or not the 20th amendment supercedes the oath of office was previously restricted to beer nights with law professors - until Tuesday.
Anyway, I'm glad Obama simply did it over again. It probably saved several million dollars of taxpayer money that would have had to be spent fighting off lawsuits from the right wing nuts.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
You are in error. You are off by 6 months. It was July 20,1969. A day I remember well.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Reminds me of some the arguments I had as kid playing tag. What is the rule if you tag someone but fail to say "Tag, your it" before they can tough home? Does the tag make them it or must the words also be spoken while off home base?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
That's why the 20th was put in - so there wouldn't be any dumbass lawsuits like that and the government wouldn't grind to a halt. Otherwise, the possibility of a Chief Justice refusing to give the oath because he didn't like the President-elect would shut down the country.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
OK Brian, I am not going to continue the quote stacking for this. However, the fact is that you are intentionally deleting the words “Or Affirmation” from my post. Those are quite important. You do not have to take the oath at all to be president. You do not have to raise your right hand or put your left hand on any book.
Further, there is not stipulation of whom may administer the oath. For example, LBJ took his oath in private on Air Force One and his oath was administered by a federal Judge who happened to be a friend of his family. Since LBJ was from the general area, she was probably pretty easy to get on site quickly.
Also, LBJ was a baptist but there were no bibles on Air Force One so they grabbed a catholic prayer book from Kennedy's desk.
Basically, the only thing that you have to do to satisfy the need for a proforma ceremony is promise to be a generally decent person who will act in the interest of the people. The specific words, while written in the constitution, really are only there for ceremonial purposes.
Legally, Obama became the president when the electoral votes were counted in Congress on 1/9/09.
=
Shit! You are right there. Even so, my point about nobody caring about the specific placement of words remains.
=
So? Again, I doubt seriously that the founders intent was for you not to take any oath otherwise they wouldnt have put it in there at all.
The oath is manditory weither you swear or affirm. The 20 amendment is not a repeal of the oath, its content is an addition which only deals with the maintance of when a person takes office, it is not a negation of the oath itself.
The oath deals with promising to defend the Constition, the 20 amendment mentions nothing execpt when a person takes office.
Again, from a religious freedom standpoint you pointing out Nixon is still does not negate the oath. It merely allows the person seeking office and getting the office individual concious on the issue of religion which is why we have "No Religious Test" as a back up to that oath.
But it does not say a person taking office doesnt have to say anything at all. It allows them freedom of religion while taking the oath, but it does not say they can get away with saying nothing at all.
And from a pragmatic standpoint it is what keeps government neutral, or should, and it is what allows diverse people to hold office, because the common ground is our citizenry, not common dogma and that oath is an well written oath to preven monopolies of power be it party or religion and keeps the door open politically for all citizens.
And calling blacks 3/5ths of a person although a horrible legacy of our history, does not negate the good ideas set fourth that paved the way to see Obama in office today. It would be like destroying the autoban because Hitler had it built. Rightly condeming slavery doesn't make the Constitution invalid. In fact, it was because of freedom of speech and the defense of such in the oath which allowed, however slow the change was, the end of slavery.
Freedom of religion in our Constition is not license to force a sectarian oath on someone, certainly It is an exersice in that oath to view it the way you see fit in your mind, which is why both an atheist and evangelical, can say the same words and still, in their individual mind, do so according to their own concious, but that does not mean they can get away with saying nothing at all.
Our Consitition is not based on dictatorships OR tottal anarchy. Our oaths, from the constitution, to our local governments and law inforcement merely give the one taking the oath the option of taking that oath according to their personal concious. It is what allows us the rule of law while at the same time protecting individual rights.
I think you might have a problem with a motif outside the Constitution with oaths in general. The Constitution does not ask anyone to take a blind oath, otherwise there would not be any advise and consent or 3 separate but equal brances of government. It says that the oath is according to your concious which allows even the person in office to criticise and take issue with what the government does.
If you are saying you are against blind loyalty, I am with you, but that is NOT what the Constitution sets forth in that oath. In every aspect of it, it allows the voters, to the judges, to the congress to the president to object to and dissent to others and mutual agreement in that freedom to do so.
If the Constitution did not have in it's First Amendment, "to petition the government for a redress of grievince" much less freedom of the press, then taking that oath would be a demand for blind loyalty. It is not an authoritiarain oath, it is an afermation of mutial respect for others who may not agree with you.
"Swear or Affirm" does not make one blindly loyal. Weither your loyalty is to a god, or a party, or no party or god, you are still promising to defend the Constitution according to your individual concious and at a minimum, you are bond to protect others individuality and concious by taking that oath. So you are NOT swearing to a government or being asked to be blindly loyal.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You're missing my point.
The founders also had a reason at the time when they put the three fifths compromise in the Constitution. Do you believe that a black person is worth only three-fifths of a white person? Even though the 15th amendment changed that and made them full citizens?
They put it in the contituttion originally. Later, they saw the problem with it and wrote an amendment changing it. That's what amendments do.
the hangup seems to be that you think Obama didn't become President until he took the oath - the Constitution says differently.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ok, then why no language in that amdendment saying, "oaths are no longer manditory"?
And you also fail to realize that the founders WERE thinking ahead and were unfortunatly bound by the society at the time that they could only do so much for blacks, many were abolitionists at the time and it is because of their forward thinking their hopes that even slaves would be free came true because of what they wrote.
If they had gon all out at the time their cause would have been dead in the water and no one would have supported them in founding the country. Oscar Shindler would have been put in the gas chambers along with the Jews if he hadn't pretended to be a Nazi, but because he did he saved lives.
The founders only had so much that they could do at the time, much like Obama couldn't come out and say he was an atheist, if he was, but the groundwork was laid by the founders so that Obama in his inauguration could publically call us citizens.
I think you are failing to realize comparitively that the founders were way more intelectuall and educated than the laymen who put them in office and by their standards they were liberal and rebels comapiared to the farmers and laymen wo went into battle with them and supported them. I don't think you are giving them enough credit.
"to petition the government for a redress of grievence" was forward thinking, but it is still up to us to complain if we so chose. I cannot think that Jefferson at least, wasnt thinking of blacks at the time, even though he owned slaves.
I have no doubt that many of the founders hated slavery and Jefferson must have been thinking ahead but was still bound by the social norms of the times, otherwise he would have been linched too.
They did not veiw themselves as gods or the government as a god and the Constitution itself was not a god to them. It was written for the times, but at the same time it was brilliant in putting the crack in the door for the expansion of rights. But it always has been up to us, the citizens to maintain it and which is why it frightens me that fewer and fewer people read it.
We as a society will only maintain our pluralism and balance of power if we remember our past and keep the Constitution in tact. What keeps us from backsliding into the dogmatic tribalsim in pre-revolutionary times, is the same Constitution that laid the groundwork for women, blacks, gays and atheists to raise their voices.
Slavery was a law and yes, it was in our constituion, but also in that same consitution is the law tool of changing mistakes which allowed for the repeal of such a horrible law, I have no doubt that the founders embeded that tool to change so the possibility would be there should someone want to pursue making such a change.
The Constitution is law in action and is not static. It is why we now have a Muslim in Keith Elleson, in gay Bary Frank, in atheist Pete Stark and Jew Joe Lieberman all serving in the same congress. But it is up to us, the individual to partisipate and raise our voices and compete if we want something. We are given our rights by the constitution, but it is up to us to maintain them by partisipating in using the Constitution.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The discussion in this thread shows why Obama took the oath a second time, in order to be clear he was the legitimate president. There surely would be those that would argue he was not given the oath correctly and hence he was not constitutionally a valid president. There would be others arguing that no oath is required and he became president at noon on the 20th. All doubt is removed and all argument by the 2nd oath. Now of course there will be the argument that Obama is already departing from his stance of open government as there weren't TV camera crews there for the 2nd oath. Clearly Obama will be held to very rigid standards compared to previous presidents.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Because the people who crafted the amendment thought that was implied in the language? I wasn't there - I don't know. Would you want a Chief Justice saying "I will not swear this president elect in <for whatever reason>" and be able to stop the government? That would give the judicial branch too much power - I've seen enough of that under W.
The 3/5 compromise was just that because of the society of that time. You are still laboring under the assumption that "if it's in the body of the constitution it still applies" so, apparently, you believe that a black person is 3/5 of a white person.
The constitution is dynamic. why do you believe some amendments apply but not others? The founders didn't consider the Constitution a god - why do you (well, except for the amendments you don't understand)? I'm trying to keep the document intact - you want to lose the amendments you don't like.
Don't go inerrantist on the Constitution like fundies do with the Bible. Otherwise, you'd have blacks being 3/5 of whites (and still slaves), women and 18 year olds not voting. illegal seacrh and seizure, etc.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I agree he did it to remove doubt for the people eho don't know that the doubt is baseless. I'm just not much into Constitutional inerrantists trying to exclude the amendments. Too much like Biblical inerrantists who hold that contradictory views aren't contradictory because both are in the Bible.
Edit: Brian, My apologies for going off - I understand your views and agree with your sentiments. I just got overzealous. After hearing W call the Constiturion "a goddamed piece of paper" I don't like it when people try to hold the document in place instead of letting it be the forward thinking document it was intended to be.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
OK Brian, I was not really expecting that you would “get it”. So let me keep this short and simple.
If in the future, I should become elected president, my inauguration will be held in front of the Smithsonian Institute. Deluded God will officiate and I will affirm only that I will do my duty to the Constitution and to the American People. The book that will be used is my personal copy of “The Road to Reality” by Sir Roger Penrose.
If DG should prompt me to say “So Help Me” I will follow on with the name Richard Feynman.
While I agree with you that it is good that Obama is making in-roads to acceptance of free thought, he has not gone far enough. If there must be a specific religious figure, it will be Colonel Michael Aquino (ret.), a loyal officer of the US military and an avowed Satanist.
And if I can have a multi-million dollar rock concert the day before, the headline act will be Man-O-War. You probably would not know but the bass player is an hereditary, Grand Knight and Minister Of Youth of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem Knights of Malta Federation of Autonomous Priories. Also, he really knows how to rock out.
Now do you get it?
=
As others have pointed out, the mishap means absolutely nothing in legal terms. For example, every president has chosen to add the words "So help me God" at the end of their swearing in even though that is not part of the oath set down in the constitution, but their oaths have not been considered invalidated.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism