"That Was No Mistake"

why is there so much anger directed towards other members here... such a waste of energy... everyone has an opinion, why not try to work together on common goals instead of bitching at each other... its gotten so bad around here i rarely read any of the comments anymore... all this infighting while the republic dies just a little more everyday...

with all the comments saying that this isn't worthy of pursuit. The people who say this is a waste of energy are trying to undermine the efforts of other patriots. Wouldn't you fight an arrest if the police forgot to read your Miranda rights? Obombya failing to recite the oath properly in public may only be a technicality, but it is an important one. Please stop discouraging fellow DPers from going after this. Besides you can pursue this and other avenues at the same time. No more negativity when it comes to activeness, O.K.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNHIR1NcuL4

"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy

and back in '05 when then Sen. Obama voted "Nay" for John Roberts as Chief Justice...

The "no confidence" on both were mutual.

Many say the 20th Amendment trumps Article 2 so the Oath isnt necessary....Dont get mad at me its just the argument that I often read.

It has to be witnessed, but not necessarily in public. Rutherford B. Hayes, for example, was sworn in in a secret ceremony with witnesses.

It was also reissued at 7:35PM last night. Correctly.

Both Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge have done the oath twice, also because of screw-ups the first time, so it isn't without precedent.

The 20th Amendment indicates when terms start and end. Technically at noon EST on 1-20, Obama was the President.

BUT...

The oath is required in order for the President to begin to execute the duties of the office. See Article II. A person can be President but not execute the duties of the office.

The term of office is different from what is done during the term, or beginning to to do such things. The former is a time frame, the latter, actions within that time frame.

That could mean, at least technically, that any Presidential Acts, such as Executive Orders, that he did between noon on 1-20 and 7:35PM on 1-21 are invalid, because he was not constitutionally able to execute the duties of the office, because he hadn't been properly sworn in. The solution is to simply re-sign them now since he has been properly sworn in. There is no requirement that the President be sworn in at noon on 1-20, but it is traditionally done that way as part of assuming the office (else Presidents like Johnson and Johnson, Truman, Tyler, Ford, etc. who took over in mid-term would have to wait until the next inauguration date, which is ludicrous)..

Moral of the story: Both the Chief Justice and the constitutional lawyer should be able to recite the oath from memory, or at least exercise the common sense to write the thing down on an index card and have it on the dais with them! That lack of sense of understanding that basic constitutional section is disturbing and not a good sign. Shoot, I remember that having to recite it verbatim was a junior-high-level civics test question!