Thread: Roberts gives Obama oath a SECOND Time without Bible!

I guess the "assumer"-President didn't think the first one "took" ...

Al Jazeera took note of the event.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ameri ... 81752.html

Obama became the first US president to be sworn into office twice after he re-took his oath of office after it became apparent John Roberts, the chief justice who administered it during the inauguration ceremony on Tuesday, had got the sequence of the famous oath wrong, causing Obama to stumble in his recital.

[quote:2h2rxttp]
Obama re-took his oath of office at the White House following his inauguration [AFP]

Roberts was called back to the White House to administer it for a second time.

With growing job losses in the US, Obama held a meeting with top economic advisers to try to chart a course for the US out of the economic crisis. Timothy Geithner, the nominee for treasury secretary, appearing before a senate panel for a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, said the government's response would be made in the coming weeks.

Obama's advisers have been working with the Democratic-led Congress on an $825bn fiscal stimulus package. Obama also issued orders aimed at freezing White House senior staff pay and placed tighter controls on lobbyists, banning his administration staff from receiving gifts from them.

In a bid to increase freedom of information about the presidency, Obama introduced new rules to ensure the president can no longer deny requests for information without the agreement of US government officials.[/quote:2h2rxttp]

I read that this morning, and it set me to wondering is he worried?

To me it kinda looks like protests over his legitamacy as President might have some merit.

I think they just did it to be on the safe side and to derail people claiming his oath wasn't valid. The flub was extremely public, but the intention was clear and he DID win the election. Another first for Obama, but no big deal in my opinion.

I agree with Betsy.....they had already been starting to come and comment the oath wasn't said correctly....when in reality the oath isn't mandated and Obama didn't make the error ,the one giving the oath did. I'm sure he knows he's under heavy watch and wants to be sure all his I's are dotted and t's are crossed.

Originally Posted by crazybird

I agree with Betsy.....they had already been starting to come and comment the oath wasn't said correctly....when in reality the oath isn't mandated and Obama didn't make the error ,the one giving the oath did. I'm sure he knows he's under heavy watch and wants to be sure all his I's are dotted and t's are crossed.

Article II
Section 1
Paragraphs 7 & 8

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly 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."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... cleii.html

President Franklin Pierce was the only U.S. President to use the word "affirm" ...

Prior to the rise in 1881 of Chester Arthur to the Presidency after McKinley's assassination, it was common for the person administering the oath to state the Constitutionally-prescribed and mandated words, and the President-elect to say "I do" or "I will" -- each phrase was not repeated by the President taking the oath. It was in that context that the words "so help me God" (purely optional) came to be added. The first President to add those words is uncertain. While the four words are commonplace to the prescribed oaths of other federal officials, they are not properly a part of the "pure" Constitutionally prescribed words for the Chief Executive's oath. (As such, there is some legal question about whether an oath-administering Judge or Justice should use the words with the expectation that the President "repeat" them, as it represents a "conflation" of two permissible, but distinct, styles of oath-taking.)

In addition, the form of oath which uses the word "swear" can append the "so help me God" while the form of oath which uses the word "affirm" must leave the words out.

Typically, one Bible has been used upon which Presidents have placed their hands in taking the oath, but there are exceptions:

John Quincy Adams (used a book of Law)
Theodore Roosevelt (nothing)
Dwight Eisenhower (used two Bibles)
Harry Truman (used two Bibles)
Richard Nixon (used two Bibles)
Lyndon B. Johnson (Catholic Missal - which would have mostly New Testament scriptural passages and some Old Testament passages used in weekly Mass 'readings.' It might have been the closest thing to a Bible available on Air Force One, where LBJ took the oath, administered by a U.S. District Court Judge, while flying back with the body of JFK from Dallas to Washington, DC)



Many times the President-elect's name is added after the "I" but there was no consistency in adding the name until FDR and thereafter. LBJ's name was not added after the "I" when he took his first oath after JFK's assassination, but it was added after he won election in his own right in 1964 at his inauguration in 1965.

Supreme Court Justices have not always been the person administering the oath of office:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

There have been other times when an oath was administered two times; but in all past instances of that happening, it was because the first oath was administered somewhat "informally" (e.g., after an assassination, by a "lesser" official such as a Notary Public whose capacity was uncertain, on a Sunday when it fell on the prescribed inaugural date, which used to be March 4th, and when a later weekday was planned for the "public inauguration" events). The second oath was more "public" at those times. This is the first time that a "public" oath has been flubbed, and followed by a "private" oath.

Audio tape of the Second Round

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_ ... th_do_over

Thank you FreedomFirst. It is important the Constitution is followed and it is a big deal. Perhaps Obama was running low on funds after fighting to prove his birth certificate is valid when all he had to do is spend $10.00, show the certificate and say "now lets end this."

So we can have Bush and his cronies swear upon the Bible, and desecrate the Bible and it's teachings even thought they swore upon it, but as soon as someone doesn't use the Bible to trick America, people panic. History people, history. Since when was the Bible important to the people that use it to swear by? It looks like I have to remind you that Bush swore by a Bible, yet it is okay to slaughter thousands of innocent people? Just more proof that the Bible means nothing. We are forgiven, remember? We can do whatever we want without consequence. Fortunately, I belive in karma. What goes around comes around. If my actions are good, then I will be rewarded. If I do bad, then I will pay. It has nothing to do with whether I ask for forgiveness. So according to many, I can be a mass murderer and as a christian ask for forgiveness, or I can be a truly good person, but not consider myself a christian, but be condemned to suffer for eternity? Yeah........makes sense.

Obama's takes his oath of office twice vs. Obama's eligibility to run for president in the first place.

1. On the one hand, we have everyone from private citizens, the mainstream news media, and Chief Justice Roberts running around so worried that Obama's FIRST oath of office was not legal according to the laws of the Constitution of the United States that Obama took his oath of office again the very next day, Jan. 21, with Chief Justice Roberts again administering the oath.

Now everyone was satisfied and relieved that Obama was legally the President of the United States according to the laws of the Constitution of the United States. (NOTE: Why Obama did not use a bible is something a reporter should ask Obama about.)

2. On the other hand, during all these months of campaigning, the same mainstream news media and public officials like Chief Justice Roberts were conspicuously silent and did not seem upset whatsoever that there was so much controversy surrounding Obama's eligibility to run for President according to the laws of the Constitution of the United States in the first place.

3. My point is this: Doesn't the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution of United States mean anything anymore to anybody?

4. Isn't the presidential eligibility part of the Constitution of the United States just as important as the part dealing with the President's oath of office?

5. So please help me to understand something: Why, when it comes to President Obama, the exact words that Obama spoke in taking his FIRST oath of office are so important to the mainstream media and to government officials like Chief Justice Roberts, while, on the other hand, the question of whether or not Obama was even eligible to be president according to the laws of the Constitution does not seem to bother or mean anything to the mainstream media and to government officials like Chief Justice Roberts?

Originally Posted by jshhmr

Since when was the Bible important to the people that use it to swear by? It looks like I have to remind you that Bush swore by a Bible, yet it is okay to slaughter thousands of innocent people? Just more proof that the Bible means nothing. We are forgiven, remember? We can do whatever we want without consequence.

What's this nonsense about Bush slaughtering thousands of people? Are you derranged or just st*pid? In wars people die, get over it.
You also conveniently forgot to mention that thanks to Bush, there are MILLIONS od Iraqis now living in FREEDOM, rather than in FEAR as they
did under Saddam. I think that liberating 28 million people should count for something, don't you?

For this alone, Bush deserves a really big medal, because he stayed the course, in spite of all the Democrat politicians who were rooting for
Al Quaeda, and were wishing that the US loses the war!

Now THAT is a DESPICABLE bunch of Anti-American losers! Compared to them, Bush is a saint, even though he screwed us on immigration.

There are now about 28 million Iraqis who OWE Bush big time, because iif it wasn't for him, they'd still be terrorized by Saddam's henchmen,
or the AL Quaeda.

It's really amazing how some liberal emptyheads are so quick to discard Bush's achievemnts, and instead accuse him of some ridiculous
made-up charge of slaughtering innocents. So just like those Democratic emptyheads in Congress, who just couldn't wait for US to lose this war,
you also make me sick! Next time get your facts straight, before trying to spread here your liberal propaganda!

Another president had a do-over becuase the word preserve was replaced with homor.

The Inaugurartion is a dog and pony show but the oath is a man's word.

I take oaths several times a year and I take them quite seriously.

Dixie