Obama’s Oath Part Deux

It seems that this week on pengovsky.com belongs to the Big O. exclusively. The man himself took care of that as he took the oath of office again. Just to be on the safe side.

20090122_obamaoath.jpg
(source: BBC News)

But this does pose an intriguing question, which applies both to the US and to Slovenia: Since the text of the oath is written in the constitution (Article 2 of the US Constitution and articles 104 and 113 of the Slovenian Constitution), what happens if the text of the oath taken does not correspond exactly with the text written in the constitution?

Any thoughts?

Published by

pengovsky

Agent provocateur and an occasional scribe.

9 thoughts on “Obama’s Oath Part Deux”

  1. Yes, I heard that too… But that then makes me wonder – why take the oath at all? I’m not an expert on constitution, but I would imagine it has something to do with his executive powers.

    Furthermore, is the oath valid if the text was wrong but the substance was correct?

  2. Why take the oath – cause it’s always been done so? (apparently, most of the inauguration is simply tradition and meant for the masses)

    Wrong text, correct substance – I’d say it is valid as long as no one contests its validity successfully. He may have retaken the oath to prevent that – no?

  3. It’s all rather silly legal quiblling. W. also swore to protect the constitution, then went on to do everything to shred it.

    According to Wikipedia, some legal scholars argue that the 20. amendment superseded the oath of office altogether, others that the president enters office at noon, but can only execute his powers after the taking of the oath.

    I disagree. If the oath wasn’t being administered, some would have thought that Yo Yo Ma was the first Asian-American president. It also doesn’t matter if any “bona fide” errors are committed, as long as the chief justice, which is the ultimate protector of the constitution, agrees.

    Remember, he first addressed him as “Senator”, and then he congratulated him.

  4. Leave it to me to ask the inappropriate questions. If this entire week on pengovsky.com belongs to Obama, what does this mean for tomorrow’s FF? :mrgreen:

  5. @dr. Arf: It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it 😀 But don’t worry my friend. MMM and FF don’t count as “week”. They’re more in the “mission from God” category 😉

    @alcessa: Well, there you go! :mrgreen:

  6. The bible doesn’t matter in the equation, other presidents have attested without (probably due to being Quakers, who do not swear on the bible). It’s constitutionally valid to be “sworn in” without it (just as one does not have to swear on a bible in court).

Comments are closed.