Yes, so some idiots are asserting that Obama is not President until he swears the correct oath. (And some not so idiots are still asserting that Chief Justice Roberts had no authority to modify the language of the oath with “so help me God,” and that could invalidate at least the oath, although there’s no prohibition against Obama adding his own bit at the end). Indeed, the Constitution states rather clearly in Article II, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘I do solemly 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.’’
That’s either modified or made obsolete by Section 1 of the 20th Amendment, which states:
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.
Some experts and historians claim that as of noon, power automatically switches from outgoing to incoming presidents. To me, that makes the most sense. Better to have a president in office than have a hiatus where the question arises regarding whether the Vice President is temporarily the President, whether during the hiatus, the outgoing President is president, or whether there is no president.
I think, though, that this issue has already been considered and fairly determined by the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution: Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: Supplements to the 2002 Edition, found on the GPO Access website.
The annotations for the Oath:
What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789, (107) although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.
That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to ‘‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,’’ might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution. (108) The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization. (109) And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing. (110) Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.
107: Act of March 1, 1792, 1 Stat. 239, § 12.
108: 2 J. Richardson, supra at 576. Chief Justice Taney, who as a member of
Jackson’s Cabinet had drafted the message, later repudiated this possible reading
of the message. 2 C. WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 223-
224 (1926).
109: 6 J. Richardson, supra at 25.
110: 2 TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON 200, 293, 296 (1868).
If that’s not clear enough, I think we would need a very strong reason not to assume Obama is and was President of the United States the moment the clock struck noon. Something stronger than a slip of the tongue.
Of course, if I were he, I’d probably recite it again for good measure. Can’t be too careful.
UPDATE: Obama retook the oath. With NO BIBLE! Doesn’t that invalidate it in the eyes of all Christians? An abundance of caution, indeed.
UPDATE: MSNBC interviews Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who indicates that the do-over was unnecessary, and that under the 20th Amendment, the successors take over immediately at noon. He also reminds us that Taft took an incorrect oath, and never retook it. Again, the reference to an “abundance of caution.” Professor Tribe humorously recalls that Chief Justice Roberts was a student of his, and shouldn’t be prone to making such a mistake. (Obama was also a student of his.)
Tags: Amendment, ban, Barack, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, faith, god, history, Lincoln, Obama, photo, president, Senator, theory, United States, war, Washington
Stuff like this only proves how crazy some of these people are. They just have no concept of what realit
whywhywhywhywhywhywhy
do they live to torture us with this petty bullshit?
And speaking of torture, is Gitmo legally complex enough to warrant an entire year for closing? I was hoping that it would be faster, but I suppose the jurisdiction issue makes it sticky.