Video: Chris Wallace wonders who’s President
posted at 10:40 am on January 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
I’m going to give Fox News’ Chris Wallace the benefit of the doubt here and assume he wanted to fill a little time during the interminable Hope and Change coverage yesterday. After both Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts managed to bobble the Most HistoricTM Oath of Office evah, Wallace wondered aloud whether Obama legally could assume office:
“It’s just conceivable that this will end up going to the courts.” Well, yes, it is conceivable, since we have a myriad of lawsuits in process already objecting to Obama’s birth status, but it’s not terribly likely to have any more success than the Birthers have had in the courts. As Brit Hume points out, Obama will have at least one vote on the Supreme Court — John Roberts, who bungled the oath.
Otherwise, this is pointless. As every news organization pointed out at the time, Obama officially became President some time during Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma’s Inaugural Dirge. (Couldn’t they have found something a little more upbeat, or were they clued in to Obama’s speech?) Obama repeated what Roberts sputtered out, and that should be enough to satisfy all but the most intractable of ODS sufferers.
Besides, I’m not comforted by the words President Joe Biden. And since the alternative to that is President Nancy Pelosi, I’m more than satisfied with the oath taken yesterday, bobbles and all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Oh they bumbled around it, so what? We get the idea. He’s the President for chrissakes… let’s get on with it.
D2Boston on January 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Ha.
Weight of Glory on January 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM
As I said in the headline post -
Even though the oath was flubbed, he said the oath in a manner that didn’t change it’s meaning.
I saw it and heard it on live TV along with millions of other people throughout the world.
Move on.
Skywise on January 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I don’t have a problem with how he stated the oath, but I am outraged that this man-child is our president.
fogw on January 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM
If he’s pressured to redo it, then shouldn’t he bring his birth certificate to make it valid?
CFL on January 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM
The secret to standing out in a crowd: perpetually surround yourself with society’s scum.
fiscallyconservative on January 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM
They both need a teleprompter.
grapeknutz on January 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Give Chris Wallace a break, half his genes are messed up by too much ego and nicotine (guess which half).
Mr. Joe on January 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Now I’m not a “birther”, but…
I’ll point out that I HAVE to show my birth certificate and another form of ID whenever I start new employment to show that I’m not an illegal alien…
Skywise on January 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I heard that from certain camera angles you can clearly see that only 4 of Obama’s 5 fingers are touching the Bible, so the oath is obviously null and void and he isn’t president.
I also heard it’s clear that Obama’s hand in the air was over 4 degrees past vertical, so that also nullifies the oath taking as well.
I also heard Chris wallace is a stupid jackass.
Dave Rywall on January 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Contrary to popular belief, the man is human and does make mistakes.
sherry on January 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM
As far as I’m concerned, he could’ve hi-fived Roberts and taken office.
This is bullshit. President Obama is in effect.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM
With Hillary heading to Sec State I should brush up on the order of Succession. I know Nancy’s in the crosshairs but who else stands between Hillary and her dream?
KCSteve on January 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM
You have got to be kidding me.
I didn’t watch–they bumbled the oath?
*head to desk*
*whimper*
Count to 10 on January 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
What surprised me is that Roberts said, “So help me God.” Roberts should have just receited the Oath as in the constitution. The President to be has historically added, in repsect to Washington, “So help me God.” I am sure this will get the Atheists in a bugaboo.
WashJeff on January 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I’m sure that was about the best the skilled orator can do.
I will give him a pass.
Just like Columbia and Harvard.
DeweyWins on January 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Simple, retake the oath…. 30 second fix… been done before…
But for those who do not see this as an issue, I find your stance interesting.
Words have meaning under the law. This is a requirement. It is NOT an option. If our own Government will not follow the dictates of the Constitution in this simple thing, why would the feel they have to follow it on other things… like… Freedom? Rights? Fairness (Equal Protection)… oh… wait… they don’t anymore do they…
As to the idea he became President when the office became vacant? Uh, no. The new office holder does not become the legal head of Government until the oath is taken, even in case of the President dieing…. hold over from the past, but still very much there.
Romeo13 on January 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM
i guess i’m actually gonna have to watch that clip to see just HOW BAD the verbal missteps are for someone to actually frakking question his legitimacy ON THIS …
[!!!!]
Buckaroo on January 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM
The funny thing is if this was a Republican taking the oath and the same thing happened, all the leftie idiots and media would be calling for an official “re-do” For four years, the Republican would be called the “unofficial president”.
sherry on January 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Besides, the oath is merely ceremonial….there is no Constitutional requirement for one to be performed with certain words recited in a certain magical manner.
The electoral college voted for Obama to be POTUS. Period. Job done. Everything else is just garnish.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Actually, he was called that, for no reason.
emailnuevo on January 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM
You’re right. I guess the left will see all R-presidents as unofficial.
sherry on January 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Time-filler, Wallace should have left it alone and talked about something more interesting such as the preponderance of stupid people in Canada.
Bishop on January 21, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Nice.
BadgerHawk on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Yeah well just because your cousin-wife whispers it in your ear doesn’t mean he’s telling you the truth.
Patrick S on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Oops….scratch that…I just discovered A2:S1:C8
[egg on face]
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
OH HELL NO!!!! That son of a 8itch IS the president!!! We don’t want ANY loophole for that Marxist asswipe to slip through when we call for impeachment hearings in 2 years.
csdeven on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
He was pres at noon regardless of the oath.
tomas on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
A new President does have to say the oath of office, the oath is written in the constitution.
Obama did not say the same oath of office that the other 43 Presidents took.
He should re-say the oath of office with the Chief Justice.
———
albill on January 21, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Heh. Must be something in the water up there.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM
You just stay classy, dave.
rightside on January 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Ed can’t seem to help himself. This is the dumbest comparison evah, comparing a mere technicality easily fixed by re-administering the correct oath, to a constitutionally mandated qualification for POTUS insisted upon by our forefathers. Thanks a lot, Ed. BHO was probably born in Hawaii and is probably a natural born citizen, but the case has some merit and should not be mocked so. Just the fact that BHO at the time of his birth (in Hawaii BTW) was vested with dual US/British citizenship may be enough to legally question whether BHO is a “natural born citizen” as defined in the constitution. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue and anyone who says the case has no merit is speaking out of their a$$. And while they’re at it, they might as well allow a few subpoenas to get the long form BC and get grandma under oath. Let the lawsuit be decided on its merits first, then label those who disagree with the ruling on the merits as tin foil hat wearers. Until there is a legal ruling on unanswered legal questions, the dispute will persist.
tommylotto on January 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM
“LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM”
kudos to you for admitting it …
/again, he stated the oath, however, um, inartfully — i’m stil not seeing standing to keep this going …
Buckaroo on January 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Let it go. He’s the President. This kind of crap makes you guys look like a bunch of idiots.
Big S on January 21, 2009 at 11:02 AM
However….there is no Constitutional reason for his presidency to be invalidated by flubbing the oath. He ‘took the oath’….to all intents and purposes. I suppose he could theoretically ‘take the oath’ by simply reading it and nodding….or signing it.
Either way….debating the legitimacy of his office for a few verbal stumblings is ridiculous.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 11:02 AM
But for those who do not see this as an issue, I find your stance interesting.
Words have meaning under the law. This is a requirement. It is NOT an option.
Obama DID say all the words in the oath, he just put faithfully after “the office of president of the United States of American.”
The meaning was not altered by this change. And if you argue that the oath must be said EXACTLY as written in the constitution, then every president who uttered “so help me God” technically was not president either.
Tom_Shipley on January 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM
As soon as I posted, I had a nagging doubt….can’t believe I forgot that clause! I tend to focus on the operative constraints of the Constitution, not the frilly minutia….
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM
The economy is tanking and people are debating this. Awesome.
Dave Rywall on January 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Gee, could you be MORE WRONG on this point?
Romeo13 on January 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Yeah well just because your cousin-wife whispers it in your ear doesn’t mean he’s telling you the truth.
Patrick S on January 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
——–
Try to keep up with the adults. Bye bye now.
Dave Rywall on January 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Yup. A2:S1:C8 does not specify that the president-elect must recite the words verbatim….just that he ‘take the oath’….however that may be done.
I suppose he could ‘take the oath’ through the medium of interpretive dance.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I already fessed up. Don’t be a twat about it.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I think you’re looking/hoping for something that isn’t there.
sherry on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Actually, there is: Article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution states: “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.”
Now, as to whether the fumble made Obama not the president, I’d say that, Constitutionally, yeah – it kinda looks that way. However, there is NO requirement that he take the oath in a massive public ceremony. Which means that for all any of us know, it could have been redone correctly afterward in a private ceremony. For that matter, it could have been done before, and the “public” recitation could have been simply a tradition, for all any of us know.
Either way, I’m not going to lose sleep over this – I’m a LOT more concerned about his policies.
psrch on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
This is how Obama should have been sworn in, and there would be no issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfzHjoRBbVA&feature=related
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Vast Right-Wing conspiracy to prevent Obama from “officially” becoming President. LOL
marklmail on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
IF OBAMA WAS ALREADY PRESIDENT WHY DID JOHN ROBERTS ASK “ARE YOU READY TO TAKE THE OATH SENATOR???”
;) Lol. Annoying but true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on January 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
The economy is tanking and people are debating this. Awesome.
Dave Rywall on January 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM
You must be referring to the stock market drop of yesterday, the only historical instance of this happening on an inaugural day.
But hey, it must rankle that the Canadian economy’s survival is dependent on the United States.
Bishop on January 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
LimeyGeek – not trying to pile on… someone else got in before me. No offense intended..
psrch on January 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Those of you who insist that the Constitution be followed ought to read the 20th Amendment closely. Here is the relevant passage; emphasis mine:
Barack Obama was the President of the United States at noon on the 20th of January. Prior Constitutional writings to the contrary are superseded by this one.
mcg on January 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
But hey, it must rankle that the Canadian economy’s survival is dependent on the United States.
Bishop on January 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
——-
Yes.
Dave Rywall on January 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
No worries mate….I fessed up before anyone else jabbed me ;)
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM
A2:S1:C9 “The President-elect shall take the oath of office and in the event that he interrupts the Chief Justice during the first line so that they are both talking at the same time resulting in the Chief Justice being thrown off his game and causing him to misplace the word “faithfully’, then the oath shall be deemed ineffective and the Presidency shall devolve to the Vice President of the prior administration.”
Wheel him back in guys, Cheney’s President!!!
tommylotto on January 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM
If this becomes a widespread meme, it only helps Obama by showing the rest of the country how moronic the far right can be.
Big S on January 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I’m waiting for Obama to vote ‘present’ or say that there is ‘only one president’.
I’m sure Justice Roberts had heartburn having to give the oath to this charlatan.
HornetSting on January 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM
False arguement… it does not say that the President cannot swear to anything else, but that he will swear (or affirm) these words…
And yes, the Letter of the Constitution is very clear on this subject… he cannot act as President until he so swears (or affirms).
Once more, its a principals arguement… this whole thing is rather silly, but it is the law… if we just ignore the law when it is inconvenient, then the whole stinking system breaks down, and we become like Mexico… where the law does not matter, and corruption reigns…
Its like the new law about having to Product test everything you make for Lead… now some board somewhere just says they will not enforce that law on some busineses, without FIXING the law… which will get hammered under Equal Protection once it hits the courts…
If you don’t like a law, change it… but don’t just ignore it, or there will be no respect for law… and everyone will just pick and choose which laws they will follow.
Romeo13 on January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
The Constitution does not require that the oath be given in a public ceremony, that the Chief Justice administer it, or for that matter that it even be witnessed. I’ll bet five bucks he’s already re-stated it correctly privately.
mcg on January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Right, but the way the oath ended up being said didn’t change the meaning of the oath or what he was swearing to. Otherwise, I’d be right up there saying “Yah, take it again”.
NO! Don’t give the Democrats any ideas. (And now we have our first mute president which is a day of hope and change for all, and he will take the oath by doing an interpretive dance demonstrating his faithfulness and respect to honor the office… He’ll be doing doing to the tune of Princess Leia’s theme, Katie… Lovely…)
Skywise on January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Nah it will show how the left doesn’t understand humor and sarcasm. Because that’s most of what i see here.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Obarfy’s been in office for a full day. What’s the hold-up? Why hasn’t he cured all of our woes yet? Said he would.
Bush’s fault in 3,2,1 ….
fogw on January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Who is Chris Wallace, and why aren’t all my bills paid already?
wccawa on January 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Sorry, but “term of their succesor” does not equate to taking the Office. It just starts the 4 year serving clock… its just sets a definate time when the ending President leaves, and new one CAN begin his office.
Later parts of the Constitution do not override earlier parts, unless there is explicit language to do so… like they did with the Income Tax amendment.
Romeo13 on January 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Count on it, Fog. The MSM and dear leader are going to say that Bush and the republicans screwed up the country SO badly, that they will not be able to undo all the mess in just one term……..
HornetSting on January 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Bills being paid are in 3 weeks. The first week is rainbows. The second week is unicorns.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Because it will take time to cure our woes. If some of the left are obsessed that Obama is the savior, do we need people on the right engaging in that same crazyness?
mycowardice on January 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Are puppies on back order?
fogw on January 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I do too, but not because of the oath
Vashta.Nerada on January 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM
If this becomes a widespread meme, it only helps Obama by showing the rest of the country how moronic the far right can be.
Big S on January 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Eh, we are already portrayed as clinging, warmongering, bucktoothed hicks who are barely able to tie our own shoes and who think gruel and road kill are high cuisine; might as well add “moronic” to the list.
We could be sweet as pie to Obarfa and the left would still find a reason to hate us.
Bishop on January 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM
This is a ridiculous thing to argue about. First, for those who missed it, the flub was Roberts’ fault (I’m a fan of the guy, but that was a potentially career-marring screwup and he’s probably got 30 more years on the bench to live it down).
Let’s not exhaust ourselves getting outraged over penny-ante nonsense, OK?
I’m not even making reference to other pressing matters. This is facially stupid to quibble about.
DrSteve on January 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM
It will go unnoticed, but Obama will take the oath again at some point and get it right. It’s not an important issue, but it is an interesting issue for those interested in Constitutional issues. And it is not insignificant because the Constitution specifically requires the oath of office. The real issue is whether the 22nd Amendment alters that requirement. So, while it is not an important issue and will never see the light of day in court, the Constitution should be respected enough to do it again. And for the record, it is my understanding that this repeat of the oath has actually been done in the past to overcome a mistake. I believe Calvin Coolliage was the last one to do it.
RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Because it will take time to cure our woes
Not what I heard. Seas receding, air becoming clearer, hope extinguishing the worlds problems, that’s what I remember and what America was sold for the last year.
Bishop on January 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM
I think they scratched that idea. Because they found puppies to be bad for the environment, and that whole global warming thing.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM
And one other point: Conservatives don’t need to give any of the crazy people on our side an issue to hammer Obama with when they want to oppose his policy decisions. It is important that we oppose him based on the merits of our arguments, and not based on crazy conspiricy theories about who is really President.
And yes, we should all be afraid of President Biden or President Pelosi…
RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Do you really think I don’t know what the hold-up is?
Mr. Fix-it painted the rosiest of pictures during his campaign. We, on the right, knew he could never live up to everything, but he spit-out nonstop promises anyway. His cult following fell for it (like Drywall), and we didn’t.
Now he has to walk the walk. I would never expect anything but stumbling from the snake oil salesman we have for a president.
fogw on January 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM
If O had shut up and waited and listened to Roberts instead of trying to speak before Roberts could even finish getting the words out of his mouth then this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
beachgirlusa on January 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Obarfy’s been in office for a full day. What’s the hold-up? Why hasn’t he cured all of our woes yet? Said he would.
Bush’s fault in 3,2,1 ….
fogw on January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
——
Earlier this morning CBC news main page had a photo of Obama with a light behind his head that looked like a halo.
Dave Rywall on January 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM
That wasn’t a light. That was his last brain cell exploding like a super nova.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM
It gets worse… Next in line after Pelosi is Byrd.
zmdavid on January 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM
That was probably coming from the lava lamp you have on your TV.
fogw on January 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM
So the line of succession is
Biden
Nancy
Byrd
Hillary
Nice job America -yeesh!
jjshaka on January 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM
“myriad of”
No such idiom!
Correct would be:
SlimyBill on January 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM
My dogs woke me up barking last night, and damned if there wasn’t a unicorn in the backyard! My neighbor got to it first though. Greedy bastard.
I did manage to find a couple of mortgage payment coupons before the other neighbors ruined it.
BacaDog on January 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Actually until the Secretary of State or Treasury is confirmed by the Senate, the next in line after Byrd is Defense Secretary Gates.
succession
zmdavid on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM
What’s interesting is that come 2016, Obama will argue that he did not legitimately get sworn in in 2009, and thus has not served two terms, thus not being Constitutionally barred by the 22nd Amendment from running again for a “third” term.
hit and run on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Oaf of Office
Kini on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I awoke to the same barking….all that was in my backyard was a coyote. Guess hope and change hasn’t come this far south yet.
HornetSting on January 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM
No. Obama’s term began at that time….but the requirement that he ‘take the oath’ before entering still remains to be fulfilled.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
If this happened to a Republican, the lefties would be asking for a recount.
Syd B. on January 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I like it. A version of Stars of the Dance or whatever.
Seriously though, people think this shouldn’t be worried about? Details don’t matter? He basically said it, so who cares, let’s move on?
Maybe in the scheme of things it really doesn’t, but that sets a bad precedent for ruling out what else may not matter to someone. It ALL matters bcs someday they will ride the slippery slope down so far that the Constitution is just a pesky document that doesn’t matter.
Remember Campbell in Armies of Darkness? It mattered exactly how he said it then.
It could come to that if we move on these little points.
Just sayin’.
Badger40 on January 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM
In the event of Obama’s death, Joe Biden will be officially recognized as black, hence any criticism of him would become racist.
Speedwagon82 on January 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Until he takes the perfect oath his very being cannot transcend into pure sun-god form. He will be in earthbound spiritual limbo awaiting full godhead status indefinitely. This should be a concern for Obama followers, not lawyers and conservatives.
econavenger on January 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM
There are details that matter, and details that don’t.
How he enunciates a sentence does not alter any magical properties (unlike the Army of Darkness reference ;)
It does not objectively alter any fundamental aspect of the legitimacy of his presidency. It is merely an arbitrary statement of intent.
Quibbling over this kind of minutia is what really doesn’t matter….and makes people look damned stupid.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM
True.
baldilocks on January 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Roberts bungled the wording, but Obama corrected him, thus saying it as prescribed in the Constitution. Worst case scenario, they could have repeated the proceedings privately, in an available room in the Capitol.
And if I’m not mistaken (which sometimes happens), Obama became de facto president at noon, even though they were about fifteen minutes late with the oath. Or at least Bush’s term ended at noon — in which case, for about ten or fifteen minutes, Nancy Pelosi was acting president.
Be afraid….
manwithblackhat on January 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Isn’t there a clause for affirmative action presidents? Expecting them to Speak so that others can understand them, or getting something right is a section three, hateful.
Hopefully he was dancing while he took the oath. That’s what this country really wants to see.
Hening on January 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM
…..lest we wander down the wobbly road to ULTRA RIGHT WING TRUTHERISM, do, please sit down and STFU!
james hooker on January 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM
No need to add evidence for that claim on a daily basis.
Big S on January 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
It’s because of crap like this that I haven’t watched Fox News in the last 5 years.
Glenn Beck is the only reason I’ll watch them now – because he’s above this left vs. right business.
Ludwig on January 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »