Hope restored: Obama takes oath of office again

posted at 9:00 pm on January 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Apparently Barack Obama must read the blogs, or listen to constitutional lawyers on television.  The new President took some free advice and re-took the oath of office today, just to be on the safe side:

Chief Justice John Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to Barack Obama for a second time Wednesday just to be on the safe side.

The unusual step came after Roberts flubbed the 35-word constitutionally prescribed oath a bit on Tuesday, causing Obama to repeat the wording differently than as prescribed in the Constitution.

The chief justice and the president handled the matter privately in the Map Room on Wednesday night. White House counsel Greg Craig said Obama retook the oath for the sake of caution.

The prospect of President Joe Biden must have caused Obama a sleepless night in his new residence.  And as it turns out, Obama wasn’t the first president to flub the oath on Inauguration Day.  Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur both had do-overs after fumbling the first attempt, the AP notes.  I’m pretty sure that Obama has to feel some relief at not making history with this.

Now we can rest easy, with the specter of President Biden … or heaven forfend, President Pelosi … put to rest.  I’m feeling HopeandChangey already!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So we are stuck in the middle of two Obama wars and an Obama Recession and he hasn’t done a damn thing to fix things! What’s up with that?

sabbott on January 22, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Sorry, my last comment was in response to:

Mr Purple on January 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM

So…does anyone think the Steelers will take the Cardinals? I’d personally like to see the Cardinals win one since the Steelers have already won 5 Super Bowls.

Tom Blogical on January 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said in the three paragraph statement.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i,” the statement concludes.
Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

I have two birth certificates, one I had misplaced and asked for a replacement. I have both now, and neither one looks like the other…if I showed both, half the people would think one or the other was a forgery. One has my footprints, one has my fathers occupation…and my wife was born just 8 months later in the same hospital and hers looks totally different from either of mine…the “birthers” would have a field day with our BC’s.

right2bright on January 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM

One has my footprints, one has my fathers occupation…and my wife was born just 8 months later in the same hospital and hers looks totally different from either of mine…

then clearly you were born in africa, you non-American you

lolwut on January 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM

We should also be able to see his college records. There are allegations he may have received aid as a foreign student. I’d be more interested in seeing if his coursework consisted of ‘history of socialism’ or ‘muslim studies’ classes.

Mr Purple on January 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM

And this right here is the primary reason why Obama has refused to bend over backwards to provide the “vault copy” of his birth record. As an experienced attorney, Obama and his attorneys do not start providing discovery just because it is asked for in a frivolous lawsuit. If you can get the lawsuit dismissed prior to discovery (which is a general indicator of frivolus lawsuit), it generally saves time, money and aggravation and prevents opening the door to even more discovery by people the think they now have a right to every private document in your life.

There are two legal reasons that I perceive here:

1 ) possiblity that by providing discovery on this matter Obama may be estopped from arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing. Therefore losing the easiest, quickest and clearest path to concluding the the litigation; and

2)If Obama goes through the effort of getting those additional records from Hawaii, the thought process goes: “Well you went through the effort of petitioning the Hawaii Government for your vault copy of your birth record, it won’t be any more burdensome for you to request college records from Columbia and Occidental. And since you got those records, it is no burden to produce your Harvard records and any writing done while at Harvard whether you still have them in your possession or not. Oh you don’t keep all the term papers that you wrote in college, well then you obviously are hiding something so we must seize all your personal papers to review so that we can be sure that you aren’t lying. Oh since you produced all those transcripts, you shouldn’t have a problem if we subpoena Columbia, Harvard and every school you ever applied to in order to review any financial aid applications that you submitted. Since we are subpoenaing those schools anyways we should get all pertinent records for Michelle as well just to be sure. etc etc. …”

That document would not be used in any court of law, to proove where he was born, or whom his parents were, because it is not a source document, due to the fact it can be changed.

Romeo13 on January 22, 2009 at 12:10 AM

This is entirely incorrect. Federal rules of evidence allow in such evidence specifically under several rules (generally exceptions to the hearsay exception rule) FRE 803(c)(9) allows records of Vital Statistics to be entered as evidence. The rule states “a statement contained in any form such as records of birts, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the rport therof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of laws.” Further the questioned COLB is a public record, report and finding allowable under FRE 803(c)(8). Finally, even the birth announcement in the local paper would be admissable in a court of law under the Ancient Documents exception of FRE 803(c)(16) (Statements in a document in existence 30 years or more.) Therefore, contrary to Romeo13’s assertion, the COLB and even the birth announcement are admissiable in Federal Court.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on January 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on January 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Thank you, sir. That was educational. And…GO BUCKS!

Tom Blogical on January 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM

So he retook the oath, but this time without a bible (or any other book). I’m not a legal expert…can someone please answer this question?…

Is the object one “swears on“, such as a Bible (or a Koran?), just a prop, or is it a requirement to legitimize an oath?

ornery_independent on January 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

So he retook the oath, but this time without a bible (or any other book). I’m not a legal expert…can someone please answer this question?…

Is the object one “swears on“, such as a Bible (or a Koran?), just a prop, or is it a requirement to legitimize an oath?

ornery_independent on January 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

There is no requirement that you swear on any kind of holy book or anything in particular. You must only make a solemn oath (or affirm) to tell the truth. Does not have to be an oath to any sort of deity. You can swear to the great spaghetti space monster for all any deity matters in taking the oath. (legally speaking of course. Your own beliefs may differ.)
I’ve been in court and depositions many times and never actually seen anyone sworn in on a bible. I suppose you could if you wanted to, but generally they merely ask you to raise your right hand and make the oath or affirmation to tell the truth.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on January 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Roberts will get it right for President Obama’s second term.

getalife on January 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Romeo, you just got pwned brah.

dakine on January 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Courtesy of the 20th Amendment:

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

So Obama had become president while Yo Yo Ma was playing.

lolwut on January 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Repeat after me…”I, state your name, do solemnly….”

CynicalOptimist on January 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM

If at first you don’t succeed, try try again.
If he messes up his first term in office, will he do it over?
So much power, too little time to use it.

Christine on January 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Thanks New_Jersey_Buckeye…

“You can swear to the great spaghetti space monster…”

LOL! Is that what they are hiding from us in Area 51?

ornery_independent on January 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Christine said: “If he messes up his first term in office, will he do it over?”

It really seems to me that Obama is already using the office as Prez to campaign for the second term, by pandering to not only his base, but to other groups where he had less support. For example, I saw Michelle O talking about how her big “cause” was military wives and families, and I thought “Where the hell did THAT come from?”

I mean, it sounds like a noble cause and all, but with her baby daddy weakening the military on several fronts (allowing open gayness, cutting funding & weapons systems, creation of a “civilian defense force”, etc…), her supposed “support” of military families looks suspect to me, and I’m guessing it’s part of a larger pandering scheme to increase support for King Obama among military families (or maybe his base, so they can say “See?! We support military families!” Wink wink, nudge nudge ;)

On a related note, I watched the new show “Lie to me” on Fox last night. It was a fairly interesting show, although I wonder why we needed yet another British male character lead on an American show, but they also use popular images of politicos and celebs to illustrate points about how to tell when one is lying. I noticed that Cheney and Bush were (not surprisingly) shown for particular (unflattering) facial expressions, but I didn’t see any prominent dhimmicrats represented. I’ll watch another show or 2 to see if any images of The Messiah or his Apostles are used, and in what context.

ornery_independent on January 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

As I said yesterday on THE ED MORRISSEY SHOW, the Oath of Office should have been done correctly.

There’s no consequence to getting it wrong, rightfully so, but that’s not reason to NOT GET IT RIGHT

originalpechanga on January 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Read Amendment XX, it states his duties begin at noon, that is the transfer of power, the oath became a formality when the XX Amendment was ratified.

Nowhere in that amendment does it revoke the requirement that the President take the oath of office. That amendment changed the date when the term began (since it forced a term to be a few weeks shorter than it would otherwise have been) and clarified some details about who exercises the authority of the office if there’s a problem like we had Tuesday:

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Since the constitutionally-required oath was not taken by Obama on 20 Jan, Joe Biden was arguably Acting President until the do-over.

The Monster on January 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

That document would not be used in any court of law, to proove where he was born, or whom his parents were, because it is not a source document, due to the fact it can be changed.

Romeo13 on January 22, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Looks like Romeo knows more about this then every attorney and judge in Hawaii who does probate…those fools use the COLB (what was called COLB, but is now called by another name, something Romeo forgot to mention, they call the documents by different names in 2009 then in 1971, imagine a gov. changing descriptions, must be a conspiracy)
Forget the fact that any “COLB” that is altered has to be stamped with the words “Altered” over the area that is changed…insignificant facts that get in the way of voices in your head that are talking to you…
Hawiian judges and attorneys are fools…they are fools, they are fools…the word “Altered” does not exist, does not exist…keep repeating…
Oh yeah, and Romeo still believes that the what was called the COLB (which I don’t think the terminology is being used now) is even good enough for a drivers license…all those millions of illegal drivers in Hawaii…
The judges, the attorneys, the police, none of them understand, just ask Romeo…all you Hawaiians, are illegal.
Koo-koo…Koo-koo…

right2bright on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Yawn.
Even if he had never taken the oath,
even if we could prove he was born in a foreign country, even if we could prove he is currently a habitual drug user,
even if we could prove he helped Blago try & sell his vacant senate seat,
even if we could prove he is an Al-Queda spy,
we would never be able to get him out of office.
The media & the left have propped this guy up way too much to lose face now.
No matter what is uncovered in the future, they will STILL sing Obama’s praises. They made him, remember?
He is a cultist personality.

Badger40 on January 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Cool…Since all this effort to redo the oath, does this mean that they’ll be following the constitution to the letter as well?

DNRtheDNC on January 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Barry O’Mulligan

mojo on January 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM

I’m not in the camp that is all up in arms over the Indonesia and Pakistan stuff. What his parents did when he was a child should not effect him. He did not choose to become an Indonesian cititzen, he was 7! So, if he was actually born in a Honolulu hospital, I’d say that his citizenship is not hurt by that. The Pakistan thing sounds like he probably had permission from the Government or went without permission and no one caught him. Not hard to believe that somenone got into a country without proper documentation. Happens here all the time.

rmel80 on January 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Well by that logic then a parents decision to have their son born in the US should not matter and none of us should be citizens of the US.

You have to deal with what DID happen. Is he eligible or not based upon our laws?

Until shown otherwise I believe there is a good chance the answer is no.

Mr Purple on January 22, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Realistically speaking, even if there isn’t a b.c., you’re talking about constitutional crisis to the nth degree. The time to be pursuing this issue with any hope of it seeing a different conclusion is long gone.

If you read the link I’ve provided, you’ll see that there were a few state courts that refused to hear the case, and we all know the Supreme Court won’t hear it, so there really doesn’t seem to be any more legal avenues to pursue.

If you honestly believe he’s hiding something, I guess you could hope that someone with serious thrill issues, or with absolutely nothing to lose, will leak it with indisputable evidence. Good luck with that.

Personally, I’m done wasting time commenting on this. No offense intended, but it’s a dead end to this crap, IMHO.

Tom Blogical on January 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Well you do agree that it would be a constitutional crisies and do realize the importance of the matter. There is no window of time that has slammed shut and made the process irreversible.

Regardless, you say that state courts and the SCOTUS won’t hear the cases – so exactly what is the procedure to validate a candidates eligibility? If an illegal gets elected as a mayor of small town and rises to Gov or Senator do we just ‘allow’ them to run without a verification process?

This is about far more than just declaring Obama eligible or ineligible. I’ve read Arnold has lawyers following this whole thing very carefully. If Obama is not a natural born citizen and is allowed to serve as President then Arnold has an opening.

That is a different political ideology discussion altoether – but the same basic exists. Arnold’s past is just better documented.

Ignoring this issue completely is wrong. This is an important issue that deserves to be pressed in the media.

Mr Purple on January 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM

I think the second time he used a Koran… Notice that you can’t see his left hand… I’m just sayin.

RalphyBoy on January 23, 2009 at 7:47 PM