December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« The Thing Is, It Makes Us Less Secure | Main | Too Many Tabs Open »

January 22, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Did they not rehearse?"

That whole scene was simply unbelievable.

Obama requested the "so help me god" bit.

Yeah, I know he intended to include it. I was referring to the manner in which Roberts asked it, not the asking of it.

Then again, the whole thing sounded way different on the Mall than it did on TV. The PA system makes things sound weird.

Northbound horse. Southbound end.

I don't get the reference.

Roberts is a horse's rear end.

There was an interesting interview on TOTN regarding this issue on Wednesday with one Jonathon Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law.

Mr. Turley seemed to think the concern was legitimate, given that, in the Constitution, the oath is in quotation marks. He also had the poop of the previous do-overs.

I think any reasonable court would find the goofed version good enough for government work. Then again, there are lots of unreasonable courts.

Somebody over at Balkinization was pointing out that 3 things don't appear in the Constitution's setting forth of the oath: the individual President-elect's name, a bible, and "so help me god."

Thus, speaking in the strictest, most absolutist, most reductio ad absurdem sense, not one President has been properly sworn in, constitutionally.

"Then again, there are lots of unreasonable courts."

That pretty much seemed to be Prof. Turley's reasoning. In other news, he referred to the oath incident as the Chief Justice's "wardrobe malfunction."

I think those folks who though Roberts did it on purpose were as far in left field as Limbaugh is in right field. He's much to pompous to screw up his big moment on purpose. To paraphrase Gene Weingarten of the Wash. Post, no one chooses to look like an idiot.

(Aside to Glom: The Constitution states what must be done. It does not forbid doing other stuff too.)

To paraphrase Gene Weingarten of the Wash. Post, no one chooses to look like an idiot.

Yes. EPIC FAIL, as the kids say.

The Constitution states what must be done. It does not forbid doing other stuff too.

Actually, it often does both. I think there is a very good argument that while you might be permitted to add language to the beginning or end of the oath, the Constitution requires it to be delivered as written. (Stating the name is probably okay because it's just a gloss on "I".) But I would also argue that you can't add anything that undercuts the meaning of the oath, such as appending "except when I deem necessary to protect the security of the nation" or something like that. Anyway, I think Glomar knows at least as much about the Constitution as either of us.

you can't add anything that undercuts the meaning of the oath, such as appending "except when I deem necessary to protect the security of the nation" or something like that.

That's for later on, when you add signing statements.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog


Philadelphia Bloggers