So, Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the Oath of Office to Obama yesterday, as a result of Roberts' flub during the swearing-in on Tuesday. First of all, obviously, how humiliating for the Chief to mess up the climactic moment of the biggest political event in 50 years. Did they not rehearse? I mean, really.
I find it fascinating that unless the right form of words are said, Obama is not President. The second swearing-in isn't just a formality or a chance to get the thing out smoothly, it's a lawyer's caution that someone may otherwise claim the person occupying the White House does not validly hold the office. Apparently, a similar problem has arisen in two prior inaugurations, with the same fix administered each time.
It also struck me how on Tuesday aggressively Roberts queried Obama at the end with the question, "So help you God?", which isn't part of the oath, of course.
"Did they not rehearse?"
That whole scene was simply unbelievable.
Posted by: phillygrrl | January 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Obama requested the "so help me god" bit.
Posted by: dougie | January 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Mithras | January 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Northbound horse. Southbound end.
Posted by: Frank | January 22, 2009 at 01:02 PM
I don't get the reference.
Posted by: Mithras | January 22, 2009 at 01:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Frank | January 24, 2009 at 09:12 AM
I think any reasonable court would find the goofed version good enough for government work. Then again, there are lots of unreasonable courts.
Posted by: Mithras | January 24, 2009 at 09:46 AM
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.
Posted by: Glomarization | January 24, 2009 at 03:23 PM
"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.)
Posted by: Frank | January 24, 2009 at 06:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Mithras | January 24, 2009 at 07:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Glomarization | January 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM