Obamas second Oath, Constitution not included!

This thread cracks me up. I laugh because Bush very CLEARLY swore he would uphold the Constitution and instead he trampled all over it. The oath is all for show.

The room in question is the map room in the W.H. It was a billiard room during Teddy R. administration and was converted in to its present state by the reconstruction of the W.H. during Truman period.

The man in the picture is Peter Jefferson,father of Thomas Jefferson.

He was a surveyor and cartographer(map maker).He helped survey and establish the border between Virginia and North Carolina.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by calcoastseeker]

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by JustAThought

 

Our system of government is based on Christian religion and its morals and precepts. We can not operate outside of it. Witout moral code law is useless regulation and taxation. In God we Trust.

What a bunch of absolute rubbish. Morals is knowing right from wrong simply by reflection. Do unto others what you want others to do to you. It hasn't got anything to do with fairytales hokus pokus religion.

You can say "in god we trust" all you want but does it mean anything ? I suppose what you're trying to communicate is, :"In goodness i trust."

Originally posted by Cio88
Just to clear the air .. It was not the Justice that messed the 1st oath up ... It was Obama.

You are WRONG. Do your research. Justice Roberts got it wrong.

Originally posted by Cio88
Just to clear the air .. It was not the Justice that messed the 1st oath up ... It was Obama. The MSM does not want to admit that their messiah messed up.

The MSM has nothing to do with it. The world watched it live. Did you watch? Did you listen? I was in my car listening and couldn't see it but caught what happened straight away. The justice said the words in the wrong order...Obama realized this and paused, waiting for The Justice to correct, the Justice then continued to bungle it but before he got it out of his mouth correctly, Obama repeated the first thing The Justice said. Geeze. Grasping at straws, much?

Why is this issue such a big one for some?

I have no issue with the president-chosen placing his hand on the bible, and I have no issue with there being no bible at all. As an atheist, I see the latter as preferable, but not necessary.

I also have no issue with the president-chosen not fully taking the oath. The president is going to lie when he needs to lie. He's going to deceive when he needs to deceive. He's going to abuse his responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution when it suits the interests of his bosses and himself.

The unfortunate fact is there is nothing in that oath that is physically preventing the president from not living up to his responsibilities as the leader of this country. The only value it has is sentimental and traditional. Perhaps we should focus on defending the more important parts of the constitution rather than this meaningless one? Just a thought.

reply to post by TasteTheMagick


I'm mad they screwed Obama like that...they should have gotten the words right the first time. Obama better be be careful around certain people.

Originally posted by AnCap
... The only value it has is sentimental and traditional. Perhaps we should focus on defending the more important parts of the constitution rather than this meaningless one? Just a thought.

With all due respect, I disagree. I believe that we codified the process in a thoughtful and precise manner. The simple 35-word phrase is more than 'just words,' because it is the will of the people. Once you start down the path of marginalizing bits and pieces of a carefully crafted Constitutional process, you risk the integrity of the entire document.

It is a small price to pay for the trust being given freely by the entire voting population of the United States.

Just my opinion, I grant you that, but I feel strongly about it. But I have to admit, I was willing to accept the intent as granted, even with the few botched words. I guess I'm just not that anal.

Come on people, it was a simple screw up that shouldn't have been a big deal, but apparantly they had to "appease" the complainers (or in my own way to describe them, Idiots) by doing a second oath. Now that they did that, you people are still whining about it! Get over it, he's the President, you don't like him, too bad thats life.

reply to post by Nlive81


Well I do believe that, whether you like Obama or not, you've got to admit that he's definitely got to keep up on his toes around all these people. Part of that comes with the presidency itself, but part of it is tied to the "dis-provers" out there trying to grasp at anything to botch his term.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ok BH, don't get your panties in a wad.

If you want I'll let you rename the thread, I just got off of work, started the thread before work, so I have not been here all day.

I made a mistake, but man, it sure seems he's making some critical ones now, that's for sure.

So I'll let you choose the new name of this thread and I will edit the title to your wish.

Btw, you need to do a little research into your leader, he's a member of the CFR, yet he denies it, he's also been tapped by the Bilderberg group supposedly, his association with the CFR alone if enough for me not to trust the man, I don't trust anyone associated with them, not even my own family members.

-Lahara

Just for reference:

Craig, the White House lawyer, said in a statement Wednesday evening: "We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday. Yet the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time."

The Constitution is clear about the exact wording of the oath and as a result, some constitutional experts have said that a do-over probably wasn't necessary but also couldn't hurt. Two other previous presidents have repeated the oath because of similar issues, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

The Constitution allows the President to either swear or affirm the Oath. They have the same legal weight but an affirmation is seen as removing some of the religious connotations of swearing. Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover are the only presidents to have affirmed rather than sworn the Oath, with Pierce placing his hand on a book of law rather than the more common Bible. John Quincy Adams also used a book of law but swore the Oath rather than affirming it. The written Constitution and the established protocols thereby allow the President to theoretically be of any religious persuasion.

us-president.suite101.com...

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith

Of course, there are going to be people in tinfoil hats saying that his presidency is illigetiment anyway.

Liberals will always say Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004, and conservatives will always question Obama being born in Kenya.

reply to post by Maxmars


I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

What I am saying is why are we outspoken about this minor screw up, but we aren't about our liberties being taken away by laws? If you are going to defend one part of the constitution, defend all of it.

Also what I am saying is this oath, whether it is taken or not, does not stop the president from violating his responsibility and oath to office. Clearly it did not stop Bush.

Originally posted by slicobacon
Liberals will always say Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004, and conservatives will always question Obama being born in Kenya.

Just so you know, I can't stand Bush, I know for a fact that the 00' and 04' elections were a complete scam, just like every other election, just like this election.

I am not into this whole Liberal vs Conservative separatism bs.

I want what's right for the world, but I will never see that day, well, at least not in this body, maybe in my glorified body.

-Lahara

Constitution this, Constitution that!


They formed America and they get to choose what to do with it so stop with your ignorant redneck mentality.

Oh my goodness KOOTER, FOX reported that OBAMA took the OATH on a KORAN resting on a baby carcass.


Oh I can't wait til it hits the streets REDS.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by The Bald Champion]

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick


As far as the bible is concerned, he doesn't necessarily have to have his hand on the bible, I've never seen that written anywhere as a requirement. Besides, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state remember? The oath was taken either way and the presence of a bible doesn't change that.

Yes it is not a constitutional requirement but if swearing on the bible before god was not important. Why is it used in courts???

Second time he has been unable to get it right.

One time I can forgive as an error but a second raises an eyebrow for me.

Yes Obama is the president but I continue to see a man that cannot swear before god no matter how many times he tries.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by XXXN3O]

i believe that president Obama represents hope for a failing humanity. Being a proud Australian, i have NEVER wanted to be an american until i watched the inauguration at 2:30 am my time.I believe he brings with him long awaited change and some Americans are not willing to accept this change,However i feel excited as i and the rest of the world sit on the outskirts and pray that he is the change the world desperately needs. What other government have you ever known to freeze its admins pay???

Originally posted by bignick
Constitution this, Constitution that!


They formed America and they get to choose what to do with it so stop with your ignorant redneck mentality.

Just as soon as you stop with your ignorant paganism, btw, I'm in no way a redneck.