The Oath, revisited...... (vote, illegal, Attorney, president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a retired LE officer, small in the grand scheme of things. Yet even I had to recite each and every word of my oath to 100% perfection, with the clear stating of each and every word.
1. Here we have the most detailed extensive inauguration in world history costing a grand total of over $400,000,000 MILLION.
2. The key and most important historical part? THE ACTUAL SWEARING IN. It's like a wedding, so much celebration and festive stuff, but the actual cerimony is what matters.
3. That actual swearing in, was flubbed, probably in an honest mistake, but when you take it all in and realize what is behind this, it's difficult to believe they screwed it up.
4. Then the Whitehouse's OWN attorneys decide it might be argued that in some far reaching scenario it could be construed as invalid. So they recommend doing it again.
5. By doing it again, they are therefore, by virtue of DOING IT AGAIN, acknowledging the first was not complete, therefore in essence, did not exist.
6. When they did the official re-do, Obama did not use the Bible, making him the first president in history to do so.
Is this a big deal? Was it done intentionally? Does it matter?
I DON'T KNOW But when you consider that 50% of the position of the Presidency, of the USA is symbolic in nature, I would say.......YES IT DOES MATTER, AT SOME LEVEL!
Where does all these lead? To a wager and I'll take 3-1 odds, that this issue is not going away and Obama will be asked to swear in yet again, with his hand on the bible. If he refuses, THEN it will be interesting.
I am a retired LE officer, small in the grand scheme of things. Yet even I had to recite each and every word of my oath to 100% perfection, with the clear stating of each and every word...
Yet, Chief Justice Roberts has been serving the country for how long? Do you think this debacle disqualifies him, since he messed it up, not once but at least three times?
And you felt to start YET ANOTHER thread to do this?
If someone screws up their wedding vows, it doesn't mean the marriage isn't legal.
The Constitution makes no mention of swearing in the president on a Bible. That's a total red herring. Don't you guys have something better to do than sit around thinking up this crap?
Besides the falsehood that all presidents have been sworn in on the bible, I find it absolutely hilarious to know that you think John Roberts, the Bush appointed Chief Justice whom Obama voted against confirming, participated in this grand conspiracy by messing up the oath - all so they could do it again...without a bible?
Of all the things crazy things written on this board...
And don't forget, there is a legal signed oath with all of the words in the correct order. Another non issue brought up by those who can't find real issues.
The law states that President Bush's term ended at noon on the 20th and Obama's started there after. President Obama could have been sky diving in North Dakota at that time and would still be President. It's been proven by pretty much every legal expert on TV.
I am a retired LE officer, small in the grand scheme of things. Yet even I had to recite each and every word of my oath to 100% perfection, with the clear stating of each and every word.
1. Here we have the most detailed extensive inauguration in world history costing a grand total of over $400,000,000 MILLION.
2. The key and most important historical part? THE ACTUAL SWEARING IN. It's like a wedding, so much celebration and festive stuff, but the actual cerimony is what matters.
3. That actual swearing in, was flubbed, probably in an honest mistake, but when you take it all in and realize what is behind this, it's difficult to believe they screwed it up.
4. Then the Whitehouse's OWN attorneys decide it might be argued that in some far reaching scenario it could be construed as invalid. So they recommend doing it again.
5. By doing it again, they are therefore, by virtue of DOING IT AGAIN, acknowledging the first was not complete, therefore in essence, did not exist.
6. When they did the official re-do, Obama did not use the Bible, making him the first president in history to do so.
Is this a big deal? Was it done intentionally? Does it matter?
I DON'T KNOW But when you consider that 50% of the position of the Presidency, of the USA is symbolic in nature, I would say.......YES IT DOES MATTER, AT SOME LEVEL!
Where does all these lead? To a wager and I'll take 3-1 odds, that this issue is not going away and Obama will be asked to swear in yet again, with his hand on the bible. If he refuses, THEN it will be interesting.
LOL, count on a crazy wingnut to spin it when it's quite obvious the reason for the redux... Roberts screwed the 1st one up... you know 'faithfully execute', which Roberts did not say, which is why Obama paused during the inauguration... NOT Obama is secretly trying to get rid of your hoodoo for his hoodoo...
Where do you come up with this stuff... it's pretty low brow.
I am a retired LE officer, small in the grand scheme of things. Yet even I had to recite each and every word of my oath to 100% perfection, with the clear stating of each and every word.
1. Here we have the most detailed extensive inauguration in world history costing a grand total of over $400,000,000 MILLION.
2. The key and most important historical part? THE ACTUAL SWEARING IN. It's like a wedding, so much celebration and festive stuff, but the actual cerimony is what matters.
3. That actual swearing in, was flubbed, probably in an honest mistake, but when you take it all in and realize what is behind this, it's difficult to believe they screwed it up.
4. Then the Whitehouse's OWN attorneys decide it might be argued that in some far reaching scenario it could be construed as invalid. So they recommend doing it again.
5. By doing it again, they are therefore, by virtue of DOING IT AGAIN, acknowledging the first was not complete, therefore in essence, did not exist.
6. When they did the official re-do, Obama did not use the Bible, making him the first president in history to do so.
Is this a big deal? Was it done intentionally? Does it matter?
I DON'T KNOW But when you consider that 50% of the position of the Presidency, of the USA is symbolic in nature, I would say.......YES IT DOES MATTER, AT SOME LEVEL!
Where does all these lead? To a wager and I'll take 3-1 odds, that this issue is not going away and Obama will be asked to swear in yet again, with his hand on the bible. If he refuses, THEN it will be interesting.
Who cares if he takes it on the bible or not? Are you trying to say he's not Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the Bible? If so, then why would he care if he took the oath on the bible or not?
I am a retired LE officer, small in the grand scheme of things. Yet even I had to recite each and every word of my oath to 100% perfection, with the clear stating of each and every word.
1. Here we have the most detailed extensive inauguration in world history costing a grand total of over $400,000,000 MILLION.
2. The key and most important historical part? THE ACTUAL SWEARING IN. It's like a wedding, so much celebration and festive stuff, but the actual cerimony is what matters.
3. That actual swearing in, was flubbed, probably in an honest mistake, but when you take it all in and realize what is behind this, it's difficult to believe they screwed it up.
4. Then the Whitehouse's OWN attorneys decide it might be argued that in some far reaching scenario it could be construed as invalid. So they recommend doing it again.
5. By doing it again, they are therefore, by virtue of DOING IT AGAIN, acknowledging the first was not complete, therefore in essence, did not exist.
6. When they did the official re-do, Obama did not use the Bible, making him the first president in history to do so.
Is this a big deal? Was it done intentionally? Does it matter?
I DON'T KNOW But when you consider that 50% of the position of the Presidency, of the USA is symbolic in nature, I would say.......YES IT DOES MATTER, AT SOME LEVEL!
Where does all these lead? To a wager and I'll take 3-1 odds, that this issue is not going away and Obama will be asked to swear in yet again, with his hand on the bible. If he refuses, THEN it will be interesting.
It doesnt matter if he had a Bible, our founding fathers realized the importance of separation of church and state, and your post is a great reminder why.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
