Experts say Obama should retake the oath

[ericire12]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL

Several constitutional lawyers said President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The 35-word oath is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president "shall" take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office."

The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear 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."

In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully," at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

A do-over "would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it's not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe," said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. "It's an open question whether he's president until he takes the proper oath."

The courts would probably never hear a challenge, and some might argue that Obama automatically took office at noon because that's when President Bush left the office. But because the procedure is so explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Beermann said if he were Obama's lawyer, he would recommend retaking it, just as two previous presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, did under similar circumstances.

"The Constitution says what he's supposed to say," Beermann said. "... It's kind of surprising the chief justice couldn't get it right."

The only reason not to retake the oath would be to prevent further embarrassment of the chief justice, he said. "It would seem appropriate for the president of the United States to take the oath specified in the Constitution," he said. "It's the same oath all 43 of his predecessors took. He ought to take it."

Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that the oath is mandatory, that an incorrect recitation should be fixed and that he would be surprised if the oath hadn't already been re-administered.

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, was hosting an inauguration party at his home in McLean, Va., Tuesday and did a mock swearing-in of 35 children. When Roberts erred, one child shouted: "That's not right!"

"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Turley said. "If he doesn't, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn't meet the constitutional standard. I don't think it's necessary, and it's not a constitutional crisis. This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe malfunction."

Video: Chris Wallace wonders who’s President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUtNway9x4

[MikeBjerum]

Mistakes happen, but little things matter.  In the quest to be above reproach he should at the very least publicly recognize an error was made and correct it.  Like was said, it could be in private.  Why not gather with the Chief Justice and a small bi-partisan group of leaders in the Oval Office and do it properly.

[tt11758]

Mistakes happen, but little things matter.  In the quest to be above reproach he should at the very least publicly recognize an error was made and correct it.  Like was said, it could be in private.  Why not gather with the Chief Justice and a small bi-partisan group of leaders in the Oval Office and do it properly.

He's above the Constitution.  Otherwise he'd have furnished proof of his qualification to serve (proof of citizenship).

[MikeBjerum]

Thought of a previous post I made when I was typing my earlier post here.  I still think that the whole eligibility to serve thing would be so simple to make go away that he either isn't eligible or thinks he's too good to just show us the papers.  Either way it ain't good.

[CurrieS103]

Yup..he retook the oath.

[Sponsor]

[brosometal]

http://drudgereport.com/flashoaa.htm

[ericire12]

Update:





Ummmm.... Where is the Bible?

[alfsauve]

And where's the media?

So much for a new "Openness" in his government.

[deamonpi]

The bible and public oath are only tradition.  The official oath was taken in private, on paper.  That's the only one that really matters.  The rest is only spending money for the sake of spending money, and putting on a show.

[ericire12]

The bible and public oath are only tradition.  The official oath was taken in private, on paper.  That's the only one that really matters.  The rest is only spending money for the sake of spending money, and putting on a show.

Still shows that Obama works the Christian angle in public only....... Lincoln bible in public only............. this guy is all about two things: stroking his own ego, and advancing his career..... that is very bad news for the rest of us!