President Obama re-takes Oath of Office

Sometimes it happens that a bishop or an MC will screw up an ordination badly enough that it has to be redone, for the sake of knowing without question that the man is validly ordained.

I suppose this also works for Presidents.

I found this interesting.  Chief Justice Roberts came to the Oval Office and administered the oath again to the new President, Mr. Obama.  Here is a story in the NYT.

Here is a picture:

Nice photo.

But… is there a Bible involved? 

Don’t they have one around?

Does there have to be one? 

I’m just askin’

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'.... Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to President Obama re-takes Oath of Office

  1. Zyphane says:

    I didn’t quite see the point of redoing the oath. He managed say all the words, and it doesn’t really effect his status as president. According to the text of the twentieth amendment, the previous president and vice president’s term end at noon on January 20th, and their successors’ terms will begin.

  2. PaulJason says:

    Anyone know who was offically in charge during the inauguration?

  3. Jenny says:

    There does not have to be a Bible. That was an innovation of George Washington as was “So help me God.”

    And Obama did not use a Bible for his do-over which is probably the first time that has happened in our history. I’d suspect that even the presidents that had do-overs used a Bible.

    All this makes me uneasy. It seems the Lincoln Bible was used for show, nothing more.

  4. Martin Gomez says:

    The Constitution doesn’t require any book – religious or otherwise – to be used in order to take the oath. It is just customary. Apparently the president didn’t have his bible with him.

  5. william says:

    It doesn’t have to be sworn on the Bible. When LBJ was sworn in aboard Air Force 1, no Bible was available, so instead a people’s Missal was used which was found in Kennedy’s desk.

    Still, it’s bit surprising if they couldn’t find one anywhere in the White House!

  6. Aelric says:

    One is curious as to what might constitute such a malfeasance in an ordination? Assuming the bishop actually gets his hands on the deacon’s head and prays the consecratory prayer, does this constitute validity despite any and all other faux pas ? For example, using the wrong Holy Oil would constitute an illicit (albeit unintentional) act, but presumably not invalidate the ordination.

    I had a classmate (from another diocese) when I was in seminary whose bishop was (apparently) prone to placing his hands over the ordinands head much like over the Host/paten with a very light “touch”: so lightly so, that I think he was concerned as to whether the ordination had ‘taken.’ I never heard, though, whether he ever followed up with that thought.

    I’m just curious as to what events might actually raise the issue of validity (other than canonical matters, of course) and whether anyone knows of a case of a conditional ordination based on the same?

    PS I’m surprised no one has created a Photoshop of that image with the fingers of Obama’s left hand crossed.

  7. Jillian says:

    I agree with Jenny. I think the Lincoln Bible yesterday was for show, nothing more. Now he’s redone the oath–correctly– and skipped the Bible on purpose. I think it says a lot about Obama. It doesn’t matter if a Bible is required or not, the fact that he has so vehemently defended his deep religious faith throughout the presidential race just makes it seem… interesting, to say the least.

  8. PaulJason says:

    Zyphane: \”I didn’t quite see the point of redoing the oath\”

    Since it is a requirement of the Constitution that the President take the oath, I could see someone contesting his status as President because of the oath being improperly administered.

  9. Siobhan says:

    Bush would have had a bible for him to use….He reads from it every day.

  10. jo says:

    Well, but even the lack of a birth certificate doesn’t seem to matter.

  11. As a Canadian watching the big event I couldn’t help asking myself, “I wonder if that’s valid.” Of course “legal’ is the correct term. I’m used to arguing about valid sacraments.

  12. Jon says:

    Apocalypse of St. John, Chapter Thirteen.

  13. RANCHER says:

    Much ado about nothing. It’s just words–and Obama really is nothing but words. Thus far, all the wrong words.

  14. Kris says:

    Quite providential it would appear!

  15. Zyphane says:

    PaulJason, I fail to see how the original oath was invalid. All together, he said everything that had to be said, with the exception that the word “faithfully” was misplaced. Even then, the new word order conveyed the same meaning.

  16. Dubya-aye See says:

    Zyphane: The Requirement in Art. II that the President take the oath of office prior to the execution of executive authority stands, notwithstanding the XXth amendment.

    All: The corporeal oath, or an oath taken while touching a thing as a witness to the matter being sworn, is not required of Federal officers, though it is required by some courts before a witness may testify (though the constitutionality of such a requirement is a matter of debate (Jackson v. State (Indiana, for ex.)

  17. Charivari Rob says:

    As to the redo, I suppose we might give him credit for wanting to “dot the i’s” and “cross the t’s”. It also might serve to head-off sniping and grumbling similar to that of the birth certificate issue.

    A question about the 20th Amendment – What particular event motivated that Amendment? I seem to remember reading about some 19th century case where the departing President and Vice-President left office on the designated date, but the President-Elect declined to take the Oath of Office until the following day (I believe it might have been that the designated day fell on a Sunday). So, the Speaker of the House was in charge for that one day – a fact noted on his headstone. I went looking through one of my history books yesterday, couldn’t find the reference, though.

    As others have said, no book is required. The option is also there for the President-Elect to ‘affirm’ instead of ‘solemnly swear’.

    In answer to PaulJason’s question about who was in charge – I believe the sitting President is ‘in charge’ until the term of office expires (at noon on Jan. 20th, these days) at which point the successor’s term begins (as Zyphane said above). In this particular case, the President and President-Elect agreed in advance that the Secretary Gates (who is staying on in the new administration) should be closeted in the proverbial ‘undisclosed location’ in case some cataclysm should be visited upon the inauguration.

  18. Dubya-aye See says:

    And, the text of the oath is prescribed by the Constitution. Legal exactitude is called for in its recitation, as can be implied by the fact that it’s the only oath prescribed by the Constitution. The failure to correct any foul-up would be an invitation for a lawyer somewhere to have the President enjoined, costing the courts a fortune. Obama did the right thing with the do-over.

  19. Mitch says:

    Retakes the oath of office, doesn’t want to use a Bible, and doesn’t want to release his long form birth certificate. Nice, transparent start, his suit should have been gray…

  20. Phil (NL) says:

    Charivari Rob,

    If I recall correctly the purpose of that amendment was to shorten the lame-duck period (between the election and inauguration) by 2 months – a period in which the outgoing president often did very little (or could get very little done), and the new one didn’t have any authority yet. To be honest, as bad as Obama is in just about every area, I’m not so sure 2 more lame-duck months would have brought anything positive, and they might have hurt the economy with more uncertainty.

    A more general note: let’s pray that a certain 9 individuals, who happen to form the US Supreme Court, will keep doing their current job for 4 more years. I’m not optimistic though…

  21. prof. basto says:

    Father,

    The usually unreliable Wikipedia seems to correctly highlight the difference between the moment when a term of office ends and another starts and the moment when the president enters into the execution of the Office:

    Article 2 of the the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath “before he enter on the Execution of his Office”.
    The 20th Amendment; however states that the terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
    It has been suggested that the wording of the 20th Amendment, which makes no reference to the oath, superseded the requirement set out in article two of the Constitution, that the oath be taken before the President begins the discharge of his duties.

    It has also been suggested, however, that the oath is still necessary, because the 20th Amendment only stipulated that the four year presidential term of office shall start at noon on January 20th, not that the President shall enter upon the exercise of his Office at that moment. The start of the term does not exactly coincide with the new President entering upon the execution of his duties. President Washington’s first four-year term, for instance, began on March 4th and ended exactly four years later, but he only assumed the Presidency on April 30th, when he took the oath of office. Vice-Presidents succeeding to the Presidency also assume office to finish a term that has long started. So the start of the term does not coincide with “enter[ing] in the execution of the Office”.
    The controversy, however, is not of much relevance, since all Presidents who assumed office since the adoption of the 20th Amendment have continued to take the Oath.

    It should be noted, however, that the Presidents-elect who took office after the enactment of the 20th Amendment were not treated as President by the judges officiating at the inauguration ceremonies before the actual oath taking before 12:00pm, (e.g. Chief Justice Warren Burger asked “Vice-President” Ford, “Governor” Carter, and “Governor” Reagan if they were prepared to take the oath; Chief Justice William Rehnquist addressed George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton as “Mr. Vice-President” and “Governor,” respectively, when asking the same question; and in like manner Chief Justice John Roberts posed the same question to Obama four minutes past noon, addressing him by the title of “Senator”).[1]

    ****The issue of suspension of the executive power****

    In 1916, the State Department determined that “there is no interval between the term of one President and the beginning of his successor, although there may be a slight interval when the executive power is suspended.” Therefore, a delay in taking the oath of office would not leave a hiatus in the office of the President, but the new president would not have the constitutional power to perform any executive function until the oath of office was taken.[2] Such finding was based on a 1821 ruling by Chief Justice John Marshall opining that it was “inevitable” the existence of a short “interval in which the executive power is suspended” because “the Constitution only provides that the President shall take the oath it prescribes ‘before he enters on the execution of the office’.” Marshall then referred to the interval between the midnight of the 3rd of March, when the presidential term started, and the noon of the 4th, when the oath of office was taken, as it was the practice at that time, saying that “there has been uniformly and voluntarily an interval of twelve hours in which the executive power could not be exercised.” Marshall further notes that the law was silent on the exact time the oath should be taken, leaving it “at the discretion of the high officer”, who could decide to take the oath on the first hour of his term in an emergency, or could defer the taking of the oath until the next day, if more convenient (for instance if inauguration day fell on a Sunday); neither timing would be deemed improper, though it is reasonable to take the oath “as soon as it could be conveniently taken” so to shorten that time interval.[2]

    With the enactment of the 20th Amendment, the moment when one term ends and another begins was changed from the midnight of the 3rd and 4th of March to noon on January 20th, but the amendment only dealt with the beginning and end of the presidential term, not with the moment when the new President actually enters in the execution of his office. All Presidents inaugurated after the enactment of the 20th Amendment have continued to take the oath of office before they enter in the execution of the office, but the inauguration ceremonies now coincide with the beginning of a new term, avoiding the twelve hour hiatus, since presidents usually take the oath of office at noon. The issue of suspension of executive power, however, is still relevant when a Vice-President succeeds to the presidency, since there can be a larger hiatus between the death or resignation of one President and the swearing-in of the successor, and when there is a delay in the swearing-in of a new President on Inauguration Day. Since the enactment of the 20th Amendment, the hiatus between the beginning of the term of a new President and his taking the oath of office has not been completely eliminated, since some Presidents, such as Bill Clinton in his first swearing-in, have taken the oath of office a few minutes past noon, due to slight delays in the inauguration ceremonies.

    For the 1916 State Department statement and the 1821 letter by Chief Justice Marshall, see:

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9C00E3D7143BE633A25756C1A9679D946796D6CF

  22. Andrew says:

    An interesting note:

    President John Quincy Adams swore on a book of laws rather than a Bible, to emphasize his devotion to the seperation of Church and state.

  23. Sam says:

    The only one who truly knows if the Lincoln Bible was for show or not is Obama himself. While it bothers me that he did not use a Bible the second time around, I’m inclined to say that we should probably extend generosity rather than innuendo, assuming the best about him and his motives until proven otherwise.

  24. PaulJason says:

    “I fail to see how the original oath was invalid.”
    Comment by Zyphane

    Slow your roll bubby I never said it was invalid, I said someone, not necessarily a bright someone, could( please note the word “could”) try to bring a case claiming that the oath was invalid. I never said it was a strong case or even one that would have merit. I think they were just being cautious in our very litigious time.

    “In answer to PaulJason’s question about who was in charge – I believe the sitting President is ‘in charge’ until the term of office expires (at noon on Jan. 20th, these days) at which point the successor’s term begins (as Zyphane said above). In this particular case, the President and President-Elect agreed in advance that the Secretary Gates (who is staying on in the new administration) should be closeted in the proverbial ‘undisclosed location’ in case some cataclysm should be visited upon the inauguration.”

    Comment by Charivari Rob

    Sorry about that Rob that’s what I was trying to get at. Yes Secretary Gates was the designated successor should anything happen at the inauguration. So my mistake he was not in charge.

  25. Will says:

    I have to admit, when I first heard the flub on Tuesday, I thought “Justice Roberts should ‘Say the Black, and Do the Red.’”

    I believe the president was validly in office from noon on Tuesday, but correctly re-administering the oath was prudent. Calvin Coolidge and one other president had their oaths re-administered for similar reasons.

  26. John Enright says:

    PaulJason said: “Since it is a requirement of the Constitution that the President take the oath, I could see someone contesting his status as President because of the oath being improperly administered.”

    Any such challenge would be futile under the “Political Question Doctrine.” Simply stated, there is no court empowered to make such a ruling. (Don’t confuse Gore v. Bush. That didn’t fall within the limits of the “Political Question Doctrine.”

  27. ED says:

    Why does thisretaking of the oath seem like a ruse to try to show that Obama is following The Constitution while his birth certificate is still incognito. Doesn’t it seem strange that he’s all for redoing the oath but wont let his birth certificate. Somethings rotten in Denmark (Washington,D.C.)

  28. What kind of protestant does not have a single bible in his house?

  29. JohnE says:

    That’s what you’re eventually left with when you keep taking out books of the bible and treating whatever’s left as obsolete.

  30. RBrown says:

    Zyphane: The Requirement in Art. II that the President take the oath of office prior to the execution of executive authority stands, notwithstanding the XXth amendment.
    Comment by Dubya-aye See

    There is the distinction between the Office and the exercise of the powers of the Office. At noon he becomes President, but the exercise of the powers and duties of the Office follow from the oath.

    Likewise, when a President is not able to exercise the powers and duties (illness, surgery, etc), the VP assumes those powers and duties–but the VP is not the President.

  31. Fr. Steve says:

    It probably burned too much last time he touched it.

  32. Berthold says:

    As someone living under the happy reign of Her Britannic Majesty I am bit amused about the question who is ‘in power’ in a certain minute. Here, the new sovereign begins to reign in theory in the second his/her predecessor has died.

    But in practice, first the death has to be officially diagnosed, then (often on the next morning) all kinds of dignitaries have to be called together to officially certify who the new monarch is, whose name then has to be proclaimed by the heralds, and then it may take some time to bring the new ruler into the country (Queen Elizabeth was, for instance, in Kenya, and I think one of the 18th century Kings only entered his realm after some weeks). The prime-minister (who has in practice more domestic power over centralized Britain than a President has over the US) takes up his office merely by being invited to do so in a private audience with the Queen soon after an election.

  33. Steven says:

    So, they admit that there was something “wrong” with his first oath.

    It is obvious that it was his choice not to use a Bible.

    This is a statement.

    This man is clearly not a Christian.

    Is this an oath or a high five?

    This is him without the rhetoric: cold and barren; the new austerity.

    Well, if this is his official oath, then at least he cannot blame the Bible or Christianity when he messes up.

  34. PaulJason says:

    Any such challenge would be futile under the “Political Question Doctrine.” Simply stated, there is no court empowered to make such a ruling. (Don’t confuse Gore v. Bush. That didn’t fall within the limits of the “Political Question Doctrine.”
    Comment by John Enright

    Yes fine wonderful

  35. d says:

    Actually, no bible is required. Franklin Pierce did not use one.

    Interestingly enough, Lyndon Johnson was not sworn in on a bible- none was available, so President Kennedy’s personal Roman Missal was used.

    Still, a bible should havebeen used.

  36. Truman says:

    It’s a silly issue. He and Roberts botched it, producing the best line of the week “how many Harvard Law Review editors does it take to get a 35-word-oath right?” No need for a Bible, or for it to be re-done, although the endless, completely contrived noise about imaginary problems about his citizenship presumbaly left them gun-shy.

    There are about a million reasons I would prefer not to see Obama as president. This is not one of them.

  37. Perhaps a dumb question, but what are the origins of swearing on the bible? Would it be correct to refuse a KJSV?

  38. Regina says:

    Obama obviously rehearsed this oath. Roberts was the one who botched it. It is sad there was no Bible. ( But ya know it wouldn’t have been the Catholic one! LOL!)This is America 2009. The Bible, sadly, is irrelevant. But thinking about it, if one was used, would it not have indeed been a sacrilege of sorts?

  39. Regina says:

    Obama no doubt rehearsed this oath. It was Roberts who botched it! It was sad there was no Bible involved, but ya know it wouldn’t have been a Catholic one! In retrospect, a Bible oath may have indeed been a sacrilege, of sorts, wouldn’t it?

  40. Regina says:

    My friend just accused me of a brain f**t. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds bad, so I apologize. :(

  41. I’m surprised I never heard the one about Johnson taking the oath on a Missal. What did the Klan say.

    Johnson was friendly with the Dominicans in DC. His daughter married a Catholic and converted.
    One day, they were visiting the White House and he called to her:”Honey the people who are going
    to take you in are here.

    I can’t confirm it, but I heard he was buried in a Catholic cemetery.

  42. Charivari Rob says:

    Will – “I believe the president was validly in office from noon on Tuesday, but correctly re-administering the oath was prudent. Calvin Coolidge and one other president had their oaths re-administered for similar reasons.”

    Wasn’t Coolidge visiting his family home when President Harding died? If I recall correctly, the news of the President’s death arrived in the middle of the night. Coolidge took the oath of office in the kitchen, administered by his father (who was a local judge or J.P. or something), and went back to bed.

    Does the Constitution specify who may administer the oath?

  43. Michael says:

    The other president who fumbled similar like Obama did, was Chester Arthur. Ironically also not a natural born citizen according to The US Constitution Article II section 1 clause 5, because his father was not a US citizen at the time of Chester’s birth, therefore he usurped the ofiice of The President of the USA. There is a book going to be written on Chester Arthur on this topic. There are lawsuites right now going after Obama to force him to release his legal vault long form birth certificate, school records from college, medical records etc.. Tommorow there is one in the Supreme Court. Dr. Alan Keyes attorney is heading this particular one up. Go to Natural born citizen Dr. Orly Tatiz blog and Citizen Wells blog. If you want to listen to attorneys and a US Constituional expert Dr. Viera go to Plains radio tommorrow. Plains radio is a radio blog station. Stephen Pedigeon esq. is one of the attorneys that speaks on this radio blog.

  44. Trevor says:

    The Bible isn’t required. Remember, our country was founded by Masons…

  45. Ted says:

    Take the test.

    FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

    ANSWER: Joe Biden

    Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

    This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

    SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

    ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

    One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

    THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

    ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

  46. PaulJason says:

    John Enright & Zyphane

    Please see Ted’s comments above, he seems to have made my point…

  47. RBrown says:

    Take the test.

    FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

    ANSWER: Joe Biden

    Disagree

    Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
    Comment by Ted

    Your conclusion is not consistent with the text you cite. Two possibilities are mentioned–the first, that the VP shall become President, the second, that the VP shall act as President. Yet for some reason you only think the first is applicable.

    If the oath was not licit (which I doubt), then it wouldn\’t necessarily mean that Biden was President, only that he would act as President.

  48. Will says:

    Charivari Rob: No, the constitution is mum on the administration of the oath. Here’s the relevant paragraph from Article II, Section 1:

    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.”

    It has been argued that the president can simply recite that himself and fulfill the constitutional requirement. In practice, it is nearly always administered by the Chief Justice of the United States.

  49. RBrown says:

    It has been argued that the president can simply recite that himself and fulfill the constitutional requirement. In practice, it is nearly always administered by the Chief Justice of the United States.
    Comment by Will

    I don’t buy that argument. Because the oath involves political power, it must be taken with witnesses.

  50. Rob F. says:

    “What kind of protestant does not have a single bible in his house?”, asked Volpius Leonis.

    He just moved into his new house that day. Would you know where to find your bible at short notice in a strange house?

  51. Much ado about almost nothing.

    Good to redo it as a precaution.

    I have no idea why they didn’t use a Bible the second time, and I see no point in offering negative commentary as a result. Could just be they didn’t want to make the redo seem so much like the first one, so that it raised too many questions about the first one. Could be they made a spot decision, because, you know, the President might have had a few other things to think about? Give him a break.

    A caution about this birth-certificate business…this has all the makings of a lot of paranoid foolishness that is going to make us look ridiculous. (A notice appeared in the Hawaii paper, a few days after Obama’s birth–did his parents “conspire, way back then, to put one over on the voters?)

  52. Matt says:

    Rob,

    “What kind of protestant does not have a single bible in his house?”, asked Volpius Leonis.

    He just moved into his new house that day. Would you know where to find your bible at short notice in a strange house?

    There is surely a bible in the White House library, and if not, it would take about 7 minutes to have one of his hundreds of staffers secure one…

    Matt

  53. James says:

    The recitation of the oath isn’t a magic formula that creates a president. This is not like a sacrament. President Obama has been in office since noon on January 20 regardless of when he actually took the oath. Article II and the 20th Ammendment make this clear. The oath is a requirement but it doesn’t not effect anything. Technically the president can execute his office without the oath but this would be illicit but not invalid.

  54. James II says:

    “A caution about this birth-certificate business…this has all the makings of a lot of paranoid foolishness that is going to make us look ridiculous.”

    It is a foolish myth being disseminated by sore losers clinging to a hope that somehow Barack Obama isn’t the ‘true’ president. It is essentially the political equivalent of sedevacantism.

    A monarchy would be so much easier ;)

  55. Antiquarian says:

    According to today’s Washington Post, Theodore Roosevelt also did not use a Bible in taking the oath, and Coolidge had one nearby but did not swear on it, because he said that wasn’t the practice in Vermont.

    It also said that the aide who handed Johnson Kennedy’s missal thought it was a Bible, and Johnson may have thought so as well. (The Post felt it necessary to explain that a missal is a “Catholic liturgical text.”)

  56. leo says:

    what happened at kennedys ceremony was cardinal cushing present in lace rochet and biretta with prayers in latin? Kennedy was so clear that his faith was not an obstacle to his politics i imagine he must have played it down on the day

  57. Reginald Pole says:

    “The other president who fumbled similar like Obama did, was Chester Arthur. Ironically also not a natural born citizen according to The US Constitution Article II section 1 clause 5, because his father was not a US citizen at the time of Chester’s birth, therefore he usurped the ofiice of The President of the USA.” quoth Michael.

    Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield, Vermont, ergo a US citizen regardless of his father’s citizenship. Michael is patently wrong and this entire thread silly.

  58. RBrown says:

    The recitation of the oath isn’t a magic formula that creates a pbresident. This is not like a sacrament. President Obama has been in office since noon on January 20 regardless of when he actually took the oath. Article II and the 20th Ammendment make this clear.

    The 20th Amendment makes clear when he assumes the Office, but, as I noted above, it also distinguishes between the Office and its Powers and Duties. And so Art II of the Constitution says that the President cannot enter on the execution of the Office until he takes the oath.

    Thus during Presidential disability, those P&D can go to the VP even thought he would not become President.

    The oath is a requirement but it doesn’t not effect anything.

    The Constitution disagrees with you.

    Technically the president can execute his office without the oath but this would be illicit but not invalid.
    Comment by James —

    In so far as we are dealing with matters of law, liceity is what’s at stake here.

  59. Marilee says:

    YA ALL,!!!! Too much should have been!!!! Dear Friends, OBSERVE HIS ACTIONS!!!! TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES!!!! SO THEY SAY, YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR WORKS……… IF EVIL.. THEN EVIL WORKS…. IF CHARITY…. THEN CHARITABLE WORKS….. RIGHT OR WRONG…. NO IN-BETWEEN…. YOU ARE EITHER WITH ME OR AGAINST ME… Says the LORD ALMIGHTY… get it….. get it….. get it….
    The english language is not the only language in the world. Patronizing the righteousness of the words is arrogance and demeaning. THE WORDS DURING AN OATH TAKING IS MEANINGLESS IF THE RESULTS ARE DESTRUCTION OF LIVES>>>>>> PERIOD!!!!!! WHAT A WASTE OF THE BEAUTIFUL ENGLISH WORDS!!!! IF THE RESULTS IS A PLACE ….. BELOW …. you all know where that it!!!! GOD please have mercy on this nation… the USA.

  60. Michael says:

    A Natural Born citizen of The United States of America is one whose parents meaning both father and mother are US citizens at the time of your birth and that one is born on US soil. You must have these two requirements in order to be a Natural Born citizen of the United States of America. That is why The framers of the US Constitution grandfathered themselves in Article II section 1 clause 5 of the US Constitution. The reasons the framers did this was because the highest office in the USA the presidency/vicepresidency cann’t have foreign allegiance to another country even through ones parents. Remember how we became a country, The Revolutionary War with England.
    Barack Obama father at the time of Obama’s birth and always remaining so was a Kenyan. Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth was under British rule. This make Barack Obama’s father a British citizen. Barack Obama admits this as fact on his own website. I believe it was also mentioned at the inaguration ceremonies. This makes Barack Obama not a Natural Born citizen as required by the US Constitution Article II section1 clause 5.
    I don’t know if people are aware that there are attorneys trying to change this Article II section 1 clause 5 in the US Constitution. So in reality Barack Obama could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom and still wouldn’t be a Natural Born citizen by virtue of his father not being a US citizen at the time of his Obama’s birth.
    I beleive the reasons for people ignoring this is that many in this country have been hypnotized by Barack Obama’s charisma and him being the “first african – american president” many people especially some in the media and the GOP are afraid that they will be called racists. This is a very sad circumstance that has been happening to people when they bring up the fact that Barack Obama is not a Natural born citizen. Remember what happened to “Joe to the plumber” during the Presidential campaign, for simply questioning Barack Obama’s economic policies of socialism ? Joe the Plumber was throughly investigated and people were trying to dig up dirt on him that had connections to the Barack Obama campaign. There is great fear out there if you go against Barack Obama . This is what Sal Alinsky’s playbook on marxisim/ communism says to do. Start causing race wars and class warfare. Cause confusion and division. Barack Obama did study Sal Alinsky as well as Hilliary Clinton, she did her college thesis on Sal Alinsky. Barack Obama has ties to communists . Barack Obama says it himself in his book “Dreams of My Father”. Frank Marshall Davis was Barack Obama’s grandfathers close friend. Frank Marshall Davis was admitted communist belonging to the communist party. Barack Obama was very close to Frank Marshall Davis who lived in Hawaii. This should be disturbing news to all of us Catholics and anyone who loves this Constituional Republic The United States of America. Our Lady of Fatima said something about praying the rosary so that Russia won’t spread her errors. Well I better be off to pray the rosary tonight. I will leave by saying this. I hope you all will think about what I just wrote and not disreguard it for paranoid foolishness. Even with all of its sins our beloved country The United States America is in great danger, that means you, me and all who are waiting to be born.

  61. Michael says:

    Yes, the announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper. It is not very hard to put announcements in newspapers after one is born, especially if you plan on comming back to that place were you live. The newspaper announcement proves nothing except that his parents announced that he was born. For the sake of arguement, what does show proof where he was born is on his legal vault long form birth certificate,and perhaps his college records, medical records, pass port recordsINS docs, all of these Barack Obama has refuse to show to We The People aka the government who has supposedly hired him to be President Of The United States of America. In actuality it doesn’t matter because he is not a natural Born citizen according The US Constitution Article II section 1 clause 5.

  62. Reminds me of Rosie O’Donnell and that whole crowd going on about the “real story” behind the collapse of the World Trade Center–or Andrew Sullivan demanding proof that Gov. Palin really gave birth to Trig–or the supposed conspiracies behind Lincoln’s assasination, or Kennedy’s. And so it goes with the paranoid strain in American politics.

    Discuss amongst yourselves, and count me out.

  63. wsxyz says:

    A Natural Born citizen of The United States of America is one whose parents meaning both father and mother are US citizens at the time of your birth and that one is born on US soil. You must have these two requirements in order to be a Natural Born citizen of the United States of America.

    Where does the Constitution define “natural born citizen” in this way?

    Oh, it doesn’t? Then this definition is not binding on anyone. At the moment I think all we can say for certain is that a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. Anything beyond that is yet to be decided. Until such a decision is made with finality, we can safely assume that Barack Obama can and will exercise the entire executive authority inherent in office of the President of the United States.

    And don’t hold your breath waiting for your definition to be confirmed by the Supreme Court.

  64. Michael says:

    John Jay, First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court along with Alexander Hamiliton and James Madison 4th US President, was a major writer of The Federalist Papers. He wrote 5 articles out of 85 articles of The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were critical in the ratification of The US Constitution. The Federalist Papers served as the primary source of interpretation of The US Constitution. In 1787 John Jay sent George Washington a letter specifically speaking about the reason requiring The President of The US to be a “Natural Born Citizen” (one being born on US soil and both parents being US citizens at one’s time of birth). John Jay got the term “Natural Born Citizen” from a leading legal treatise “Law of Nations”(1758) E. Vattel Book 1 , chapter 19, section 212. The term ” Law Of Nations” is mentioned in the US Constituion, Article 1, section 8 defining of piracy. This book was read by the Founding Fathers and most of the general population of the colonies. John Jay was one of the Founders who was very concerned about foreign influence being everted on our nation. He was especially concern with the President of the US and future Presidents of the US who are also Commander and Chief of the Armned Forces. That is why John Jay wrote this requirement for President of The US- vice president of the US. This way The POTUS and vice-POTUS will not have a foriegn allegiance to another country through being born on foreign soil or through the citizenship of one’s parents. “We The People” voted and ratified Article II section 1 clause 5 of The US Constitution. The Founders put the grandfather clause for themselves because some of them were not born here. This was only for those at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. So anyone born after was not elligble to be POTUS if one failed the requirement of “Natural Born Citizen”. John Mc Cain had to show his birth certificate because of claims he was not a “Natural Born Citizen” (US Constitution Article II section 1 clause 5) part being born on US soil. John McCain showed his legal birth certificate showing he was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal by both parents being US Citizens at the time of his birth. The congress approved it even Barack Obama approved it. The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement only can change by a new Amendment by “We The People”.
    Oh!, I won’t hold my breath for the Supreme Court. I agree with others such as Dr.Alan Keyes that we are in a Constitutional Crisis in this country. Perhaps what needs to be done is to exercise our Constituional Right (4th Amendment) to call for a Grand Jury to remove Barack Obama from the office of President of The US.

  65. Mitchell says:

    Michael,

    Right on target..there would be no conspiracies if the Obama simply released his numerous sealed records, including that long form birth certificate…Why are all those med docs., BC, univer. docs., anything that would end the conspiracy once and for all sealed in the first place. Why?? His arrogance is a slap in the face to people who just want to see proof. So willing he was to re-take his oath so as to avoid conspiracy and yet so obstinant in his willingness to an open, fair, transparent rendering of his qualifications to run for office. And for all who want to sweep it all under to rug because they think he may do well for the country (in their opinions) are you aware of the ramifications of finding out he was not qualified to run in the first place? Is it worth it not to ask and verify? Reminds me of a video I saw once of Nixon’s resignation and departure from the White House all the while set to the the lyrics of “I never promised you a rose garden”…

  66. Michael says:

    Sorry it is the 5th Amendment not 4th Amendment
    The 5th Amendment ” No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presenment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” The federal grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government. The Grand Jury “We The People” when sitting as grand jurors are a “constitutional fixture in its own right.” The Grand Jury is an instituion seperate from the courts, over whose functing the courts don’t preside. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the instituional government. “It serves as a kind of buffer or referee between the government and the people.” (Justice Scallia) The Grand Jury operates in a courthouse, the grand jurors are called and they have oaths administered to them.
    We are in a critical time in American history, we must fight for the protection of our constituional republic. We must take back our power of a Federal Grand Jury ,the 4th branch of Government under the 5th Amendment of The US Constution and start acting as powerful as the other branchs of government. We The People have the right under the 5th Amendment of The Us Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whatever the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court so brilliantly stated we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”