Obama re-takes the Oath without swearing on the Bible.
Robert Henderson
during his inauguration. Interestingly, the re-take was done in private
without him swearing on the Bible, supposedly because none was present.
What do we make of this? A deliberate ploy to avoid taking his oath on
the Bible or a pointer to an inadequate IQ, as would be expected from
his 50% black genetic lineage?
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
DVH
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:azmaMZOb...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Obama had to re-take the presidential oath because he fluffed his lines
> during his inauguration. Interestingly, the re-take was done in private
> without him swearing on the Bible, supposedly because none was present.
>
> What do we make of this? A deliberate ploy to avoid taking his oath on the
> Bible or a pointer to an inadequate IQ, as would be expected from his 50%
> black genetic lineage?
Neither of the two. He's a muslim terrorist mole planning to introduce
sharia across the US.
Andy
small mind, and possibly even smaller penis.
FriarTuck
the islamic "brotherhood"... doesn't it sound a bit masonic... ?
Relevant.Search.Result
wrote:
He is a Judeo-Islamist by faith. The people who claimed that he is a
Baptized
Christian should explain which "Christian Church" Baptizes with Judeo-
Islamic names!
Blue
> A deliberate ploy to avoid ... drawing attention to Rober Henderson's
> small mind, and possibly even smaller penis.
If the Andy penis is bigger than the Andy brain you should see a doctor.
Or the guinness book of records.
Blue
> Obama had to re-take the presidential oath because he fluffed his lines
> during his inauguration. Interestingly, the re-take was done in private
> without him swearing on the Bible,
The bible was just for show ;)
NF_011909063216
> without him swearing on the Bible, supposedly because none was present.
>
president but he benfitted from an almost total main stream media black out.
The lonely exception was the Israel Insider which is not the first choice of
most Americans.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/imani-obamagate-a-brewing">
Obama Is Still Not Eligible To Become The American President
--
Posted Via Newsfeeds.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Service
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.Newsfeeds.com
Blue
Yet more disturbing revelations
http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t272/Blue911_bucket/?action=view¤t=ObamaOath4.jpg
doc
The mistake was made by the Chief Justice Roberts (very anglo name).
Doc
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:azmaMZOb...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Blue
> Neither.
> The mistake was made by the Chief Justice Roberts (very anglo name).
> Doc
So simply putting the word faithfully in the wrong place is all it takes
to throw the United States President ?
Lou Ravi
> Obama had to re-take the presidential oath because he fluffed his
> lines during his inauguration.
Or rather the person speaking those lines for him to repeat fluffed it/
Blue
He was taught the sentence over and over again.
He only had to repeat what he had been well practiced earlier.
Some johnny come lately comes by, throws in faithfully at the end
and the President is taking on water. He should have just ploughed through.
He fluffed it.
UltraLazarus
wrote:
> What do we make of this? A deliberate ploy to avoid taking his oath on
> the Bible or a pointer to an inadequate IQ, as would be expected from
> his 50% black genetic lineage?
No wonder Wisden got rid of you.
Bert Hyman
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What do we make of this?
Nothing. Why do you ask?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Svenne
>He fluffed it.
Nope.
The dithering judge fluffed it.
Obama knew the oath, he was expecting the correct oath to be
administered and when the judge fluffed his lines there was a
cognitive dissonance and Obama paused at the irregularity thrown up by
the judge's incompetence.
The judge was a senile, dithering old sod, Obama carried it well.
Svenne
Blue
Nope. He is the President, any fluffs are his and his alone.
If the judge is a duffer then it is his fault. At that time he was the President.
He could have said, he is a duffer, get me someone else.
Why did he retake the Oath minus a bible, who's fault is that? Again it is his.
Or he just didn't care enough to have someone go find something as easily findable
as a bible. If Bush was so religious, getting Blair on his knees and so forth,
the place should be drenched in bibles. Why weren't there any to be found?
Why did no one have one? Why did no one go round the corner shop to get one?
Or did he just not, really give a damn??!
Perhaps George Bush nicked them all when he left? It's still no excuse.
Obama may well have expected to have had his speech handed to him on a plate.
But his whole job is about things not being handed to him on a plate.
The only thing he had to get right the whole day was one sentence.
And not mention the 1812 war.
--
Blue
Svenne
>Svenne wrote:
>> Obama knew the oath, he was expecting the correct oath to be
>> administered and when the judge fluffed his lines there was a
>> cognitive dissonance and Obama paused at the irregularity thrown up by
>> the judge's incompetence.
>>
>> The judge was a senile, dithering old sod, Obama carried it well.
>Nope. He is the President, any fluffs are his and his alone.
>If the judge is a duffer then it is his fault. At that time he was the President.
>He could have said, he is a duffer, get me someone else.
Wrong. The judge fluffed it and Obama, quite rightly, paused at the
judges fluff.
>Why did he retake the Oath minus a bible, who's fault is that? Again it is his.
So?
It's still the oath with or without a fairytale book.
>Obama may well have expected to have had his speech handed to him on a plate.
>But his whole job is about things not being handed to him on a plate.
>The only thing he had to get right the whole day was one sentence.
And the judge blew it.
"Repeat after me" is the formula and the judge got it wrong.
Obama paused at the bit where he was supposed to "Repeat after me"
because Obama heard that the senile old duffer of a judge got the
lines wrong.
The judges fault and Obama carried it off well.
Svenne
Blue
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:26:37 +0000, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>
>> Svenne wrote:
>
>>> Obama knew the oath, he was expecting the correct oath to be
>>> administered and when the judge fluffed his lines there was a
>>> cognitive dissonance and Obama paused at the irregularity thrown up by
>>> the judge's incompetence.
>>>
>>> The judge was a senile, dithering old sod, Obama carried it well.
>
>> Nope. He is the President, any fluffs are his and his alone.
>> If the judge is a duffer then it is his fault. At that time he was the President.
>> He could have said, he is a duffer, get me someone else.
>
> Wrong. The judge fluffed it and Obama, quite rightly, paused at the
> judges fluff.
You are a misguided and confused soul. If it was only the judge who made the error,
and if Obama only paused then he would not have felt obligated to retake the Oath.
The facts remain that the judge put "faithfully" at the end.
Obama then paused.
Then the judge put "faithfully" at the beginning, correctly.
But then Obama said "faithfully" at the end. Getting the word order wrong.
>> Why did he retake the Oath minus a bible, who's fault is that? Again it is his.
>
> So?
>
> It's still the oath with or without a fairytale book.
The 'so' being what was the point of using the bible in the first oath then?
You and many others may well call it a fairytale book. But has Obama
ever called it such? Is it gospel only out in public and a fairytale book
behind closed doors?!
>> Obama may well have expected to have had his speech handed to him on a plate.
>> But his whole job is about things not being handed to him on a plate.
>> The only thing he had to get right the whole day was one sentence.
>
> And the judge blew it.
>
> "Repeat after me" is the formula and the judge got it wrong.
No I will not oh wrong one. You will repeat after me, Obama got it wrong.
> Obama paused at the bit where he was supposed to "Repeat after me"
> because Obama heard that the senile old duffer of a judge got the
> lines wrong.
>
> The judges fault and Obama carried it off well.
Cobblers.
tvaer...@aol.com
> Svenne wrote:
> You are a misguided and confused soul. If it was only the judge who made the >error, and if Obama only paused then he would not have felt obligated to retake >the Oath.
The world is full of conspiracy nut jobs who would have been endlessly
trying to make something out of this non-event. As it is the
conspiracy nut jobs are trying to make something out of the second
oath because of the alleged lack of appropriate fairy tale book.
> The facts remain that the judge put "faithfully" at the end.
> Obama then paused.
> Then the judge put "faithfully" at the beginning, correctly.
> But then Obama said "faithfully" at the end. Getting the word order wrong.
The judge made a cock up. It was soon put right, Obama carried it off
well and the judges cock up had no serious effects.
> >> Why did he retake the Oath minus a bible, who's fault is that? Again it is his.
>
> > So?
> > It's still the oath with or without a fairytale book.
> The 'so' being what was the point of using the bible in the first oath then?
American presidents can take their oath on a piece of used toilet
paper for me.
> You and many others may well call it a fairytale book. But has Obama
> ever called it such? Is it gospel only out in public and a fairytale book
> behind closed doors?!
It's probably only gospel in public and a fairy tale book behind
closed doors. But it's impossible to be sure, there are a lot of fairy
tale believers in the USA and playing at least lip service to that
Bible crap seems to be a prerequisite for high office.
> > "Repeat after me" is the formula and the judge got it wrong.
>
> No I will not oh wrong one. You will repeat after me, Obama got it wrong.
Nope, the judge messed it up.
> > Obama paused at the bit where he was supposed to "Repeat after me"
> > because Obama heard that the senile old duffer of a judge got the
> > lines wrong.
> > The judges fault and Obama carried it off well.
> Cobblers.
The judge dropped the ball and Obama stabilised the confusion the
judge created very well.
Svenne
Cisco2665
wrote:
> Obama had to re-take the presidential oath because he fluffed his lines
> during his inauguration. Interestingly, the re-take was done in private
> without him swearing on the Bible, supposedly because none was present.
>
> What do we make of this? A deliberate ploy to avoid taking his oath on
> the Bible or a pointer to an inadequate IQ, as would be expected from
> his 50% black genetic lineage?
> --
> Robert Henderson
> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
--
People most often believe what they want to believe in spite of logic,
or common sense.
- www.cisco.co.nr
Cisco2665
--
Conspiracy theories arise because conspirators deny the plausibility.
- www.cisco.co.nr
Cisco2665
Wayne
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:azmaMZOb...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> during his inauguration. Interestingly, the re-take was done in private
> without him swearing on the Bible, supposedly because none was present.
>
> What do we make of this? A deliberate ploy to avoid taking his oath on the
> Bible or a pointer to an inadequate IQ, as would be expected from his 50%
> black genetic lineage?
> --
supreme court to avoid swearing in on the bible.
Blue
US constitution Article ii Section 1.
----
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."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.htm#A2Sec1
Obama said "I will execute the Office of President of the United States FAITHFULLY".
Stabilised ?!!
--
Blue
tvaer...@aol.com
> tvaerska...@aol.com wrote:
> > On 23 Jan, 15:59, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
> >>> "Repeat after me" is the formula and the judge got it wrong.
> >> No I will not oh wrong one. You will repeat after me, Obama got it wrong.
>
> > Nope, the judge messed it up.
>
> >>> Obama paused at the bit where he was supposed to "Repeat after me"
> >>> because Obama heard that the senile old duffer of a judge got the
> >>> lines wrong.
>
> >>> The judges fault and Obama carried it off well.
>
> >> Cobblers.
>
> > The judge dropped the ball and Obama stabilised the confusion the
> > judge created very well.
>
> US constitution Article ii Section 1.
>
> ----
> 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,
Exactly. And that's where the judge got it wrong and messed up the
oath taking.
> and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."http://www.usconstitution.net/const.htm#A2Sec1
> Obama said "I will execute the Office of President of the United States FAITHFULLY".
The judge had already messed up the oath taking. Obama had a split
second to respond to the judge leading the oath taking and following a
pause after the judges cock up, carried on.
If Obama had used a different formula than that of the judge, after
whom he was repeating the oath, then it could be argued that he did
not swear the same oath as that being administered and therefore it
was invalid.
A brilliant split second judgement by Obama there, and he followed it
up by making sure with a second oath taking. It shows the superior
intellectual sharpness of the man, head and shoulders above the moron
he replaced.
Svenne
Blue
>
> A brilliant split second judgement by Obama there,
By not becoming president.
tvaer...@aol.com
> By not becoming president.
So that's what the right wingnuts are after, trying to prove Obama is
not really president. If it's not that, it's trying to get him
impeached.
You're pissing against the wind. Obama is president. He is intelligent
and eloquent. Everything that retard Bush was not. Live with it.
Svenne
Blue
> On 23 Jan, 20:28, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
>> tvaerska...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On 23 Jan, 19:43, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
>>> A brilliant split second judgement by Obama there,
>
>> By not becoming president.
>
> So that's what the right wingnuts are after, trying to prove Obama is
> not really president. If it's not that, it's trying to get him
> impeached.
The only thing I am saying here is that Obama DID fluff the lines he was supposed
to say in order to become president, first go.
It is only you Svenney who have been acting like some fly in the soup, prom queen
with her knickers down, trying to claim Obama used the correct word order for
the last umpteen posts that has caused so many a headaches for the poor reader.
> You're pissing against the wind. Obama is president. He is intelligent
> and eloquent. Everything that retard Bush was not. Live with it.
I was merely trying to help you by shinning a light into that addled fog you
call your brain. If you want to imagine there is more between us than that
or that these conversations have some more lofty purpose then I am not
fit to deal with someone with such severe delusional problems and I'll
leave you to wend your way by yourself. Good day.
--
Blue
Robert Henderson
writes
Remember that he has 50% black genes. Average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa
is 69 according to Lynn and Vanhanan. RH
Svenne
>tvaer...@aol.com wrote:
>> On 23 Jan, 20:28, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
>>> tvaerska...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On 23 Jan, 19:43, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
>>>> A brilliant split second judgement by Obama there,
>>
>>> By not becoming president.
>>
>> So that's what the right wingnuts are after, trying to prove Obama is
>> not really president. If it's not that, it's trying to get him
>> impeached.
>
>
>The only thing I am saying here is that Obama DID fluff the lines he was supposed
>to say in order to become president, first go.
Nope. Obama made the best of a bad job caused by the senile old judges
incompetence.
>It is only you Svenney who have been acting like some fly in the soup, prom queen
>with her knickers down, trying to claim Obama used the correct word order for
>the last umpteen posts that has caused so many a headaches for the poor reader.
Obama did a great job after the judges cock up.
>> You're pissing against the wind. Obama is president. He is intelligent
>> and eloquent. Everything that retard Bush was not. Live with it.
>
>
>I was merely trying to help you by shinning a light into that addled fog you
>call your brain. If you want to imagine there is more between us than that
>or that these conversations have some more lofty purpose then I am not
>fit to deal with someone with such severe delusional problems and I'll
>leave you to wend your way by yourself. Good day.
'bye.
Svenne.
Blue
> In message <6ts31pF...@mid.individual.net>, Blue <bl...@there.com>
> writes
>> doc wrote:
>>> Neither.
>>> The mistake was made by the Chief Justice Roberts (very anglo name).
>>> Doc
>>
>>
>> So simply putting the word faithfully in the wrong place is all it takes
>> to throw the United States President ?
>
>
> Remember that he has 50% black genes. Average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa
> is 69 according to Lynn and Vanhanan. RH
I think his 1812 speech was wrong. It showed he was willing to garner
his unity at the price of others. If the only way he can unite Americans
is to give them wars in which they have to defend their homelands or esle,
then yes that is unity, but at what price. Does he have nothing a bit less
than a war to offer Americans in order to promote some unity?
It also showed he was willing to ditch others in order to achive
what ever goals America has, at what ever price. It was a passionate
rather than compassionate speech. I don't think the people wanted to
hear a 'we will fight them on the beaches' speech, they wanted something
a bit more hopeful.
He obvilously, like so many Americans does not know the full story over
the 1812 war. Is that his failing or the American bias system, I don't know.
But he may want to bone up before he upsets someone who cares.
Yes he did put the word, 'faithfully' at the end rather than at the beginning of his Oath.
And yes there maybe some there, out to trip him up. But it was fully his
responability to find a bible for the real Oath he took, and he just couldn't be
bothered that much. So he took the real oath without a bible.
How do we measure a man. Surely not by their IQ alone. Some of the brightest
people have used their minds for evil, where a dumb person would just be dumb.
Some of the brightest people have made some of the worlds most advanced killing
machines. Or they will talk of saving the planet to win votes, at the expense
of the poor who struggle to warm themselves.
I don't think we can judge people by what they say and do in public so much
as what they say and do to the few in private. We can not measure a man by
his IQ alone, but rather by his compassion and treatment of others,
his hypocrisy. And that is why you are true Robert Henderson.
You may make me want to chuck my cookies at times. But in this world today
it is refreshing to find someone so bold, to be himself.
However crazy and anti-PC that may seem to others.
--
Blue
rangotang
the wrong place. Not really his fault since he was supposed to repeat
the words of the Chief Justice and it was the Chief Justice who
flubbed it. Very few legal experts had any doubt that this oath was
sufficient to comply with the Constitution.
(2) Out of "an abundance of caution", Obama took the oath again, this
time with the Chief Justice making sure it was done exactly as in the
Constitution. This was for a much more select audience but there's
nothing in the Constitution that requires a big crowd (Coolidge was
first sworn in with only his father in the room). He didn't have a
Bible for the "do-over" but there is nothing in the Constitution about
using a Bible, and it's not normally used for other govt oaths such as
naturalization or enlistment.
The Chief Justice of the United States was satisfied with the oath-
taking (the second time at least) and I don't know of anyone of a
contrary opinion who ranks higher as a legal authority.
tvaer...@aol.com
> (1) Obama said all the words of the oath. He merely put one word in
> the wrong place. Not really his fault since he was supposed to repeat
> the words of the Chief Justice and it was the Chief Justice who
> flubbed it. Very few legal experts had any doubt that this oath was
> sufficient to comply with the Constitution.
The first oath was taken with Michelle Obama holding the book
purported to be the Bible, but she had switched the Bible for The
Necronomicon and it was on this Book of Evil that Obama took his
"oath." This is why the oath taking was garbled.
> (2) Out of "an abundance of caution", Obama took the oath again, this
> time with the Chief Justice making sure it was done exactly as in the
> Constitution. This was for a much more select audience but there's
> nothing in the Constitution that requires a big crowd (Coolidge was
> first sworn in with only his father in the room). He didn't have a
> Bible for the "do-over" but there is nothing in the Constitution about
> using a Bible, and it's not normally used for other govt oaths such as
> naturalization or enlistment.
The second oath was taken in secret while standing around black
candles and inverted crucifixes and was toasted in virgins blood as
Obama pledged the United States to his master, the Dark Lord
Beelzebub.
Svenne
Blue
If you are implying that I have claimed Obama is not the president then
please do alude to the certain sentence, paragraph, where you think I have
stated such and I will be only too happy to clear the fog that has arisen
in your fatuous supposition.
--
Blue
Robert Henderson
<94b673bc-bebf-4b27...@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
rangotang <sussm...@hotmail.com> writes
>(1) Obama said all the words of the oath. He merely put one word in
>the wrong place. Not really his fault since he was supposed to repeat
>the words of the Chief Justice and it was the Chief Justice who
>flubbed it. Very few legal experts had any doubt that this oath was
>sufficient to comply with the Constitution.
The problem with this argument is that Obama is (1) presented as highly
intelligent, (2) highly educated and (3), most importantly, an expert
on the Constitution.
If he is such an expert he could have been expected to correct the error
automatically.
RH
>
>(2) Out of "an abundance of caution", Obama took the oath again, this
>time with the Chief Justice making sure it was done exactly as in the
>Constitution. This was for a much more select audience but there's
>nothing in the Constitution that requires a big crowd (Coolidge was
>first sworn in with only his father in the room). He didn't have a
>Bible for the "do-over" but there is nothing in the Constitution about
>using a Bible, and it's not normally used for other govt oaths such as
>naturalization or enlistment.
>
>The Chief Justice of the United States was satisfied with the oath-
>taking (the second time at least) and I don't know of anyone of a
>contrary opinion who ranks higher as a legal authority.
--
Robert Henderson
writes
>of the poor who struggle to warm themselves.
>
>I don't think we can judge people by what they say and do in public so much
>as what they say and do to the few in private. We can not measure a man by
>his IQ alone, but rather by his compassion and treatment of others,
>his hypocrisy. And that is why you are true Robert Henderson.
>You may make me want to chuck my cookies at times. But in this world today
>it is refreshing to find someone so bold, to be himself.
>However crazy and anti-PC that may seem to others.
All I ever try to do is give an honest appraisal of reality. RH
Svenne
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message
><94b673bc-bebf-4b27...@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>rangotang <sussm...@hotmail.com> writes
>>(1) Obama said all the words of the oath. He merely put one word in
>>the wrong place. Not really his fault since he was supposed to repeat
>>the words of the Chief Justice and it was the Chief Justice who
>>flubbed it. Very few legal experts had any doubt that this oath was
>>sufficient to comply with the Constitution.
>The problem with this argument is that Obama is (1) presented as highly
>intelligent, (2) highly educated and (3), most importantly, an expert
>on the Constitution.
There is no reason to doubt that he is all those things.
>If he is such an expert he could have been expected to correct the error
>automatically.
There was a split second decision to be made after the judges cock up.
If Obama had not repeated the words of the judge, rightie loonies
might well have started whingeing that as he had not repeated the same
formula as the judge, the oath was invalid.
Given the fumbling mess made by the judge, Obama did very well.
Svenne
Blue
> In message <6u030tF...@mid.individual.net>, Blue <bl...@there.com>
> writes
>> of the poor who struggle to warm themselves.
>>
>> I don't think we can judge people by what they say and do in public so
>> much
>> as what they say and do to the few in private. We can not measure a
>> man by
>> his IQ alone, but rather by his compassion and treatment of others,
>> his hypocrisy. And that is why you are true Robert Henderson.
>> You may make me want to chuck my cookies at times. But in this world
>> today
>> it is refreshing to find someone so bold, to be himself.
>> However crazy and anti-PC that may seem to others.
>
>
> All I ever try to do is give an honest appraisal of reality. RH
Yes, honesty is good. However, when giving an honest appraisal of reality to a person.
It can come over as a judgement. And not everyone wants an honest opinion
by someone of what they think they are.
--
Blue
Blue
> (1) Obama said all the words of the oath.
If he said all the words backwards it would be meaningless.
If he said all the words jumbled up, it would be meaningless.
----
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability Office, preserve, protect of and defend the Constitution of the United States."
---
I am sure the US constitution meant the words to be said in the correct order.
It just seems ODD that in swearing to up hold the Constitution he gets it wrong.
Yes the second one is all legal pucker but it should also be noted, he did swear on thin air.
--
Blue
Svenne
>rangotang wrote:
>> (1) Obama said all the words of the oath.
>
>If he said all the words backwards it would be meaningless.
>If he said all the words jumbled up, it would be meaningless.
No simple matter.
If he said the words differently than the "repeat after me" words of
the swearing in judge it could be argued that he'd given a different
oath to the one administered and that it was therefore invalid.
Obama made the best of a bad job caused by an incompetent judge.
>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the President of the United States,
>and will to the best of my Ability Office, preserve, protect of and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Yep, pretty simple and the senile old judge fluffed it.
>I am sure the US constitution meant the words to be said in the correct order.
You'd think the highest judge in the land would know that.
>It just seems ODD that in swearing to up hold the Constitution he gets it wrong.
The judge got it wrong.
>Yes the second one is all legal pucker but it should also be noted, he did swear on thin air.
Fairy tale books are not mandatory for the presidential oath.
Svenne
Blue
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:53:12 +0000, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>
>> rangotang wrote:
>>> (1) Obama said all the words of the oath.
>> If he said all the words backwards it would be meaningless.
>> If he said all the words jumbled up, it would be meaningless.
>
> No simple matter.
>
> If he said the words differently than the "repeat after me" words of
> the swearing in judge it could be argued that he'd given a different
> oath to the one administered and that it was therefore invalid.
>
> Obama made the best of a bad job caused by an incompetent judge.
What is more important, the judge or the US constitution?
Did the judge have the power to over turn the US constitution's words of Oath
in that split second? No. Would Obama have been in any trouble if he
didn't repeat the judges fluffed words? No. Would Obama have been
made president after saying the correct words in their correct order, yes.
The facts remain that the judge DID correct himself, so Obama
could have, (should have), repeated the Oath correctly, but he didn't.
You have got the cart before the horse and you're coming up the rear.
--
Blue
Svenne
>What is more important, the judge or the US constitution?
It takes a judge to administer the oath. There's no oath without one.
What is the legal situation if the person taking the oath says a
different formula than the judge administering the oath.
It can't be said that he took the same oath as the one administered.
>Did the judge have the power to over turn the US constitution's words of Oath
>in that split second? No. Would Obama have been in any trouble if he
>didn't repeat the judges fluffed words? No. Would Obama have been
>made president after saying the correct words in their correct order, yes.
Is an oath legal if the judge administering it fluffs his lines and
administers a different one than the one laid down in the
Constitution.
Is an oath legal if the person taking the oath repeats a different
formula than the one being administered.
If people don't need to swear to the oath being administered but can
insert a different one as the mood takes them and expect it to be just
as legal as the one being administered they might as well do away with
judges.
>The facts remain that the judge DID correct himself, so Obama
>could have, (should have), repeated the Oath correctly, but he didn't.
Which oath is the judge administering, the one he originally gives or
the second one after he has changed his mind. If the judge dithers and
flip flops, which flip flop takes precedence?
Obama soon sorted out the confused situation created by the judge's
senile dithering and stuck to the first version administered and
retook it later just to be sure.
A good job well done.
Svenne