LACKING LEGITIMACY

[John81]

LACKING LEGITIMACY



by Brother Gregory Williams
January 23, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

When August Caesar was sworn into his last 10 year term of office as the Emperor of the Roman Empire, he handed the sacred tablet upon which the oath was written to Tiberius and had him read it. He said he would not take an oath he did not intend to keep.

The other day all America watched as the oath of office for the presidency of the United States was administered to Barack Obama. Millions of dollars were spent on the lavish ceremony performed before the whole world.

While millions watched, some people of faith looked closely to see if Barack Obama would actually place his hand on the Bible, as all other presidents have done since George Washington. News reports told us the Bible used to swear in the new president was the same used by Abraham Lincoln over a century ago.

Something has been determined to be drastically wrong with the events of the day. Something was not done right and what happened yesterday to fix it was unprecedented in the history of the United States.

"Barack Obama has retaken the oath of office that was administered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the ceremonial inauguration yesterday."[*]

There was something apparently wrong with what the whole world saw and heard during the taking of the oath of office. Experts believed they needed to have a retaking of the oath or the presidential power to exercise authority over the nation of the United States would not be legal. What was this serious legal breach that concerned these legal minds?

"Legal experts had suggested the move because of the multiple stumbles and flubs at the original event.?
?Josh White of the Washington Post said the oath of office is required of a new president 'before he can execute his power.' ?
?And he noted, 'the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.'
'He should probably go ahead and take the oath again,' Jonathan Turley had told the Post."[*]

So, Barack Obama, the United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, reporters, and photographers all made an appointment to gather for a second oath taking.

"The Associated Press reports, 'The president said he did not have his Bible with him [for the second oath], but that the oath was binding anyway.'"[*]

All this trouble and no body could find a Bible? So what does that tell you?

For the first time in history the presidential oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of United States was not taken on the the Bible.

Was this just an oversight or was it the plan all along? It is unlikely that the ceremony will be repeated for those who have concerns about this breach of presidential protocol. I have no doubt Washington and Lincoln would have found a Bible.



When Washington took the oath they did not have a Bible when they were about to begin. Someone had run down the street several blocks to find one. Evidently the chief justice of New York?s Supreme Court had admonished Washington and everyone present that an oath that was not sworn on the Bible would lack legitimacy. When Washington was finished, adding the phrase, ?So help me God,? he bent down and kissed the Bible.



I cannot tell you why our present legal minds, who found the first oath of Barack Obama to be inadequate, took all the trouble to gather for a second ceremony, nullifying the first, but then did not take the trouble to find a Bible. You will have to answer that question for yourselves.

While some will cry conspiracy, it is certainly an omen of things to come.

For what we are about to receive, may we truly be thankful. [*] Quotes are taken from WND article entitled CHANGING OF THE GUARD. Obama retakes oath of office

http://www.newswithviews.com/Gregory/williams101.htm

[deafnva77]

I thought the first oath, Roberts made a mistake and Obama made mistake after him. but anyway, if they wanted to do it right, they should have brought the bible with them.

[John81]

I thought the first oath' date=' Roberts made a mistake and Obama made mistake after him. but anyway, if they wanted to do it right, they should have brought the bible with them.[/quote']

It was sort of a double blunder. Roberts paused too long so Obama started speaking and then Roberts spoke over Obama. Then Roberts messed up the next line and Obama began to speak and then gave a nod to Roberts who spoke it again. They both goofed but such is typical, we just don't see it on TV that often.

Indeed, when they decided to do the oath over they should have invited the White House press group in and a Bible should have been used.

The fact they didn't use a Bible seems telling to me as does their exuse that one wasn't handy.

There is a copy of the Koran in the White House library (thanks to Bush), certainly there is a copy of the Bible as well...isn't there?

If nothing else, this "Christain man" surely has a Bible somewhere in the White House he could have fetched or sent someone to retrieve.

Also, if they believed the first oath wasn't legitimate and they needed to do another, why do they want us to accept that what he signed prior to taking the new oath (the one that counts now)?

[futurehope]

Is there anything in the constitution mandating the us of the bible? Is this not exactly what we were told would happen when they said BO wouldn't swear in on the bible?

[Sister Jones]

Well first of all, no constitutional scholar thinks there was anything "drastically wrong" with the first oath, much less making Obama's presidential power "not legal." As a matter of fact, Mr. Turley said this in the article you quote from:

"I don't think it's necessary, and it's not a constitutional crisis. This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe malfunction."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

As a side note, William Taft messed up Herbert Hoover's oath, but no one questioned Hoover's legitimacy as President.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 57205.aspx

Also, the second oath does not "nullify" the first oath, which was perfectly sufficient legally.

Finally, it is simply incorrect to say that every President has taken the oath of office on a Bible. For example, Teddy Roosevelt did not swear on a Bible, nor did Calvin Coolidge. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of codified laws, and Lyndon Johnson swore on a Catholic missal. According to the Architect of the Capitol, neither Hayes nor Arthur used a Bible for their private swearing-in ceremony, but only for their subsequent public ceremony.


http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... ted-States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03769.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html

--------------------------------------------------

[Sister Jones]

Is there anything in the constitution mandating the us of the bible?

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating the use of a Bible. See the last two paragraphs of Section 1 of Article II:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

-----------------------------------------------------------

[deafnva77]

Is there anything in the constitution mandating the us of the bible? Is this not exactly what we were told would happen when they said BO wouldn't swear in on the bible?

As a christian, it is a sad state that one of them don't carry the bible. It tells a lot about their character to me. Plus, they made mistake the first time, so what (at least in my opinion). But to them they feel they have to get it right and do it again but the second time they didn't do correctly either as it suppose to be correct form from the first one... then later said "well, the first one was binding so it doesn't matter" I was thinking "WHAT???? why make Obama do it again if the first was was binding???"

[Sister Jones]

As a christian, it is a sad state that one of them don't carry the bible. It tells a lot about their character to me. Plus, they made mistake the first time, so what (at least in my opinion). But to them they feel they have to get it right and do it again but the second time they didn't do correctly either as it suppose to be correct form from the first one... then later said "well, the first one was binding so it doesn't matter" I was thinking "WHAT???? why make Obama do it again if the first was was binding???"

Deanva, as the White House counsel said, they were taking the second oath merely "out of an abundance of caution." Every expert interviewed felt the first oath was legally sufficient; some pointed out it would silence the conspiracy theorists to take it again. One less headache.

And no, having a Bible does not make the oath "correct." The fact is that the constitution does not require it, and as I mentioned in my earlier post, at least six other Presidents have been sworn in without placing their hand on a Bible. Most public officers - including members of Congress - do not swear on a Bible. (Yes, I know individual members may have separate ceremonies with a Bible, but the actual oath of office is administered to the chamber as a whole while the members simply raise their right hands.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03769.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[deafnva77]

silence the conspiracy theorists

As if without the bible doesn't?

[John81]

Indeed, if they had truly been concerned about "conspiracy theorists" they would have been extra careful to perform the second oath just as the first oath (hand on Bible, plenty of reporters, cameras rolling, etc.) rather than doing a rush job.

The concern was that since the Constitution says the specific words of the 35 word oath (I think it's 35 words) must be administered and repeated word for word BEFORE a new president can excercise any presidential power, that the second oath was necessary because at least one word was not spoken correctly or two words were switched (I've heard conflicting reports on which the case was).

Whatever the case may be, the handling of the second oath was done in a very poor manner, totally disregarding over 200 years of protocal, leaving out the key component that everyone from the first oath administrator to the previous one said was necessary for a legitimate swearing in, the Bible. Not to mention it was done in a rather secret manner with only a handful of specially selected print media reporters invited, no video cameras, none of the rest of the White House press invited, and only reocorded by a still photo and a handheld cassette recorder.

One should not lay all the blame upon Obama because Chief Justice Roberts should know of the importance of the Bible in this matter and demanded that a Bible be used before he would administer the oath...just as the first oath giver did with George Washington.

[trc123]

There are many fundamental Baptist Christians who would not "swear" with their hands on the Bible as they believe the Scriptures tell us to let our yes be yes and no to be no and not to swear at all.

[HappyChristian]

I don't think it was intentional to do the flubbing. There were blunders, pure and simple. And as far as not having the Bible during the second swearing - this was almost an impulse decision, rather than something thought out. I, personally think that the reason they went ahead and re-said everything was to stop people from making a big deal out of the blunder.

As far as swearing on the Bible - I realize that in court people do that (some don't, anymore - now, it's more of a raise your right hand), but is that actually scriptural? Think about it - doesn't the Bible tell us we aren't to swear by heaven or earth?

I think the most important thing is that the vow was made. And when mistakes were made, the decision was made to say the words again, in compliance with the exact wording. I am a Christian, and I am very concerned about the man who is now POTUS, but I think this is mountain building out of mole hills, IMO.

trc - you were posting as I was, and that was my point in the second paragraph.

[Sister Jones]

As if without the bible doesn't?

Well, I don't think anyone is really arguing an oath without a Bible is not legitimate.

[deafnva77]

no but it make people wonder why he used it on his first oath but not the second . John81's article was not the first time I heard about it, People have been talking about it everywhere. And they worry about conspiracy.
But oh well, I know it wasn't well planned and was unexpected.

Kinda sad that Obama used the bible on his oath when he didn't have to, but don't carry one.

[Sister Jones]

Indeed' date=' if they had truly been concerned about "conspiracy theorists" they would have been extra careful to perform the second oath just as the first oath (hand on Bible, plenty of reporters, cameras rolling, etc.) rather than doing a rush job. [/quote']

Which I guess just means they weren't all that concerned. As mentioned in those articles.



See above. Not one legal expert has argued that the first oath was not legally sufficient.

Don't forget that Herbert Hoover did not take the oath as worded in Section 1 of Article II, and no one questioned or has questioned his authority as President.



No one has suggested a Bible is necessary for legal sufficiency. And as for being a "key component," please note my prior comment that at least six Presidents (and their "oath givers") have thought otherwise.



Possibly it's because Chief Justice Roberts is familiar with what is legally required.