It was Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s version of a wardrobe malfunction. He flubbed the 35-word oath and learned why his predecessor Chief Justice William Rehnquist always read the oath for accuracy. Now, there is a debate as to whether the oath is constitutionally valid and the possibility that Obama should take the oath again out of an abundance of caution. Today I did this segment on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. I will also be discussing this tonight on MSNBC Countdown.
The words of the oath are placed in quotations in the Constitution and are therefore to be taken with precision. Roberts was anything but precise. He moved the adverb, which Obama appears to have caught to his credit.
This is the problem of trying to to without notes.
The oath is supposed to read: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Instead, Roberts said the words: “that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully,” putting “faithfully” at the end of the phrase, and substituting the word “to” for “of.”
The easiest solution is to simply retake the oath, which was done by Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur. For an article discussing the issue, click here.
For the clip, click here.
Still blaming Roberts here I see.
The Talk of the Nation segment involving this thread’s topic starts at about 13 minutes and ends at about 21 minutes.
Talk of the Nation Re: Obama Oath and other talk.
npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=4&islist=true&id=5&d=01-21-2009
Thanks for the heads-up Professor Turley!
In a world where people are formally organized to dispute President Obama’s birth certificate, it might be better to be safe than sorry in this case.
Bobfrog,
I think most people who supported Obama for president couldn’t care less about the order of the words. But there are lots of people around who would like to question Obama’s authority, and they will attempt to throw doubt for anyone who would pick up the talking point. A talking point doesn’t have to be well founded or even real at all for the far right lunatic fringe to make a big deal out of something. As I mentioned before, look at what they did with Obama’s birth certificate. If doing the oath over again will shut these people up, then let’s do it.
Speaking for myself, it seems like questions surrounding the authority of the president are pretty important. That most certainly doesn’t mean I don’t want to see Gonzales put through the ringer. I only wish it was as easy to get the truth out of him as it is to re-do the oath of office.
Furthermore, the addition of the Oath taker’s name is not in the original language, and that would invalidate the purity of the Oath as well! (As perhaps “so help me God”, but that could be interpreted as a separate extra saying, not an adulteration.)
BTW “take” doesn’t have to mean spoken …
I’ve yet to see confirming evidence of the claim from many casual commenters (e.g. to Washington Monthly threads) that Obama (like predecessors? For how long?) signed a written document before the spoken oath. If so, it’s a valid Inauguration regardless. Did he? But Wikipedia does not mention the written version, and Google was not conclusive. Along with some scholars being concerned, that bothers me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
Ah yes; so when a few words are rearranged for the oath of office, without changing the meaning, everyone is up in arms.
But when Congress grills an Attorney General as to far more important issues regarding the constitution, i.e. HOW TO READ THE DOCUMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED
to wit:
Gonzales: The fact that the constitution…again, there is no express GRANT of Habeus in the Constitution….there’s a prohibition against taking it away.
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?
Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby GRANTED or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
So when two branches of the Federal Government exhibit a complete ignorance of the fact that THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER and that it constricts power, i.e. that it is designed on the theory that rights confer power and not vice versa, NOBODY says a god damned thing.
But when the Chief Justice rearranges the ordering of a predicate within a sentence without changing its meaning, everyone’s buzzing about it at the water cooler.
Pathetic.
foo:
“I gotta tell ya, it warms my law student heart to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court screw it up.”
******************
If you really want to get hot, read some of his opinions, the maladministration of the oath of office is just an h’orderve.
Well, pardon the heck out of me.
{Quote: “The office is often informally but mistakenly referred to as “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” However, 28 U.S.C. § 1 specifies the official title as “Chief Justice of the United States.” End Quote}
However, and informally, if all of the other 8 judges are Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and Mr. Roberts is THE Chief Justice of that Court, then by gosh and by golly Mr. Chief Justice is the “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”. Now, if I were carefully administering the Presidential Oath of Office, I would concede to the title of “Chief Justice of the United States.”
I wonder if the 8 senile “supreme” justices know they are “…of the Supreme Court” and not “…of the United States” and if Mr. Chief Justice knows that his is “…of the United States” and not “…of the Supreme Court”?
I might have agreed with the “taking it again is for the conspiracy theorists” analysis if I just hadn’t lived through the Bush years. You’re not paranoid if you can identify the persons out to get you, not just me but the collective “us” – the citizens, and their motives for attacking our system from the inside. Make no mistake about it, the Neocons are enemies within. They attacked our Constitution, the very foundation of our government, like ravenous dogs. Inflicting damage to our country a terrorist groups WISHES, no DREAMS, they were capable of achieving. If you discount them, then you haven’t been paying attention. All of them are evil, but not all of them are incompetent. Take the oath again. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. It takes minutes to administer. A small price to avoid even the most pedantic Neocon assaults. And I ask you, when have you ever seen Neocons resort to the pedantic? I rest my case.
Roberts also got something else wrong, which I haven’t seen widely mentioned. Before maladministering the oath of office, he asked BO “Are you ready Senator?”
BO had already resigned his senate seat. He should have asked “Are you ready Mr. President-Elect?”, or maybe more simply “Are you ready?”
I gotta tell ya, it warms my law student heart to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court screw it up.
Roberts is actually “Chief Justice of the United States.” Maybe he will get the oath correct the next time. There will only be 100 million viewers watching for a mistep. Do not be nervous, Chief.
Re-swearing would only be for the comfort of the guys sitting in their pajamas in their mothers basements spinning conspiracy theories — oops, Mom, i will take out the trash right now, i promise!!!
Is impeachment off the table?
I think President Obama (President-retroactive Obama?) should retake the oath to allay any suggested improprieties and so that we have a replacement image of the swearing-in to counter the original.
Personally, I want to know if “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” Roberts is capable of properly administering the oath, because he will most likely have that difficult task to perform in 4 years.
And Chief Justice Roberts was so well medicated at his Congressional hearing! (He looked liked he’d taken a bolus of downers!) Given the climate, I’d retake the oath.
From the article:
“Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, was hosting an inauguration party at his home in McLean, Va., Tuesday and did a mock swearing-in of 35 children. When Roberts erred, one child shouted: “That’s not right!”
******************
It’s comforting to learn that the kids at your party knew the Constitution better than our Chief Justice, but as I said before, they likely read the document before yesterday. I am guessing the kid was Madie, she’s got a feel for podium propriety!
[repost] Chief Roberts just flunked Con Law 101. He said “I will execute the Office of President to the United States.” He seemed like an empty robe up there on his own without his clerks and assistants.
Someone tell him to go back to the Court and write out the final clause of Article I, section 1, 500 times on a blackboard.
Then go over to GW Law and enroll in Professor Turley’s Con Law class.