Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Fox News questions validity of Presidential Oath of Office
This is remarkable, that President Obama took the oath a second time to set the record straight. Here are excerpts from the CNN article:
On Tuesday, Roberts, apparently working without a copy of the oath handy on the Capitol steps, started out by reciting a six-word phrase, but Obama broke in halfway through and repeated the first three.
That seemed to throw the chief justice off stride, and he proceeded to mix up the order of the words in the next phrase.
The Constitution sets out the language that should be used in the oath: "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."
Roberts moved the word "faithfully" back nine spots, and used "to" instead of "of." That threw the president off base, and he smiled and paused to collect his thoughts, then decided to follow Roberts' lead.
But the chief justice at the same time attempted to correct himself.
Here's how Tuesday's oath went:
Roberts: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully ...
Obama: ... that I will execute ...
Roberts: ... the off -- faithfully the pres -- the office of president of the United States ...
Obama (at the same time): ... the office of president of the United States faithfully ...
The two got the rest correct, including the nonobligatory "So help you God?" "So help me God."
And then at the do-over:
Before Wednesday's do-over at the White House, Obama, waiting on a couch, joked that "we decided it was so much fun ... "
Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.
After a flawless recitation, Roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations again."
"Thank you, sir," the president replied. After a smattering of applause, Obama quipped that "the bad news for the [press] pool is there's 12 more balls."
The Fox News anchor Chris Matthews mentioned in the article would appear to be adding spam to television. It's starting to sound old here: And Fox News anchor Chris Wallace said: "We're wondering here whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States. They had a kind of garbled oath. It's just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts." Who wants to hear him? Are you tired of Fox News' irritating objections, or do they merely amuse you? I would love to hear your insights.