Did President Obama need to retake the oath of office?

The constitution doesn't say anything about a Bible needing to be used. So he didn't have to use a Bible at all. I'm glad he re-took the oath just so none of the nay-sayers could find a reason to cause trouble. Constitutionally, there is nothing they can do about no Bible being used. I took a very similar oath for the Air Force and there wasn' a Bible in sight. There is such a thing as separation of church and state.

I suppose then that the MANY couples that flub their words during their wedding ceremony aren't really married?

Obama joined good company in Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge as U.S. presidents who have had to retake the oath of office because of unusual circumstances.

Arthur, who served from 1881 to 1885, was sworn in by the chief justice of the New York Supreme Court at his home in a private ceremony following the assassination of  president James Garfield. Arthur was sworn in a second time by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court two days later at the Capitol. ( Arthur's primary achievement was the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The passage of this legislation earned Arthur the moniker "The Father of Civil Service" and a favorable reputation among historians. "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired… more generally respected." Author Mark Twain, deeply cynical about politicians, conceded, "It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration.")

Coolidge, who served 1923 to 1929 (only pres. born on the 4th of July)  took the oath of office at his father's Vermont home following the death of president Warren Harding. Coolidge's father was a justice of the peace and administered the oath. Concerns about the jurisdiction of Coolidge's father led to Coolidge taking a second oath later in Washington. (He restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor's administration, and left office with considerable popularity. "he embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength.") 

salem...

The minister flubbed our ceremony... completely followed the wrong order and wrong set of vows (which we wrote).

Then the goober tells my mother-in-law that we were nervous.

What a dink!

If you are not sure, why don't you look up the wording of the oath, it's in the United States Constitution.  Then compare it to your utube versions.  It doesn't take a lot of time or effort to compare and contrast.  Less time than it takes to criticize the President of the United States.  How's that for a concept?

"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 the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  That is the oath in its entirety.  There is not one word pertaining to taking the oath on the Bible.  There never was.  To the people whose asses are in a sling because in their ignorance they don't believe President Obama was sworn in, I am ashamed of you and pity your stupidity.  You are the reason we continue to go downhill as a nation.

BINGO.

Obama became president at 12 pm that day. And he was able to fulfill the duties of the president after he took the oath the 1st time. I think the founding fathers would find the whole issue both absurd and humorous. (that isl, after they got over the initial shock of a Black man being the president, lmao!)

1. The 20th Amendment specifically states that "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January." It does not state when the duties of the president begin. Therefore, the incoming president's duties do not automatically begin at noon.

2. Article 2, section 1 specified that before the president can assume the duties of the president he shall take the following oath or affirmation and then gives the specific words to be used. There is no mention or requirement for a Bible (see 4 below). The Bible is a tradition started by George Washington.

3. The addition of "So help me God." by Chief Justice Roberts is not part of the oath of office (see 4 below). Originally the first oath was administered in accordance with the Constitution to George Washington, who added the "so help me God." on his own. Again, this has become a tradition, but it is not included in the Constitution and Chief Justice Roberts should not have included this in his "lines" on Tuesday.

4. Article 6 of the Constitution lists a range of federal and state officers that "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Founding Fathers considered upholding of the Constitution to be a BIG DEAL. Preserving the Constitution means following it properly, including the proper oath.

As someone who had taken a commission as an Officer in the U.S. Army, I vividly remember taking the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I still feel that I am bound to that oath even though I have been honorably discharged.

5. The Constitution, including the Amendments, is actually a very short document considering how important it is and how powerful it is. It is a testament to our Founding Fathers that they said so much with so few words, particularly considering the thousands of pages of blather that gets churned out by Congress every year. Perhaps the reason for this is that there were relatively few lawyers among the Founding Fathers while there are too many lawyers in Congress?

Nice comparison! ((I'm gonna still that, thanks =D)

The Bible does not include a specific wording of wedding vows. Different churches seem to have something generally similar, but people make up their own vows, too. Maybe the problem is that marriages don't have a Constitution that spells out what the differnt parties are supposed to do and are not supposed to do. Hmmmm....maybe the idea of a prenup could be expanded beyond just financial assets to include agreed behavior. "You will quid, and I will pro quo sort of stuff?

Nothing will shush them completly.  Now they'll complain that there was no bible and how they all told us so!

The Constitution says nothing about a Bible.  Thinking he didn't use one on purpose in order to have permission to be a "bad guy" is magical thinking done by those that don't have enough brain power to think critically.  I am a Christian.  I read my Bible.  It is my guide - not a magic wand.  Besides, what do we do if we ever a elect a Jew to public office?  Does She/He have to put their hand on a Bible? 

What, and Jews don't have a bible??? Oy!

Article 6 of the Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It can be found online.

Because some how that matters.  I thought the theory was that he would use the Koran?

Who's theory was that?

Who cares if he used the Bible or not?? What does that have to do with being president? If one of those Bible thumpers would actually act like a true Christian than maybe the Bible would mean something. As it is, Obama has acted more like a true Christian than most extreme right wing freaks.

I still feel that if he were to swear on anything, it should be the constitution itself, nothing else.

Youre not kidding, its just what the right wing wackos are looking for as evidenced by the comments of WilleyNillie above.  What is wrong with these people? 

Let it go, before you start shouting conpiracy, the man who flubbed the line in the original oath was a right wing, GWB appointment.  Is he in on it too?  

Just for the record, I would put Obama up against GWB any day when it comes to living the life of a true christian and displaying family values.

Prospero obviously can not take a joke.

I'm with you, Prospero! 

John Roberts, as Bush's appointee and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, should have issued the oath of office correctly the first time.  I have no doubts that it would only have been a matter of time before some nut tried to contest the swearing in. 

Obama did more during his first day in office to confirm his commitment to our nation than any other President I've ever known.

Just shows the republican supreme court justice doesn't know what the Constitution says, even when it is specifically spelled out in 35 words.

Prospero: You begin by referring that anyone who is not of the Democratic Party, or of left leaning ideals is a wacko? Next, while saying how irrevlevant this entire topic is, you attempt to deflect the blame for this miscue back onto Bush? Finally, you use the guidelines of a religion you do not follow as the stick by which you will measure Bush vs. Obama? Typical and weak.

What does the Bible have anything to do with it?  Other than personal superstition?  The Bible is irrelevent.  What is wrong with all you people who seem to think the Bible is integral to the oath??!  Have you ever even READ the Constitution or understand the basic founding principles of our Nation?  Geez, it's like a bunch of retarded rednecks running around posting here.

The bible doesn't matter unless you are a religious zelot. 

If you are going to insult those of us that believe in religion at least learn to spell!

I say there are more important issues in this country today besides the issue being argued here today. All of you get over it...or is this the sign to come for the next four years. No wonder the country is in the situation it is today with all of you people arguing over issues like this. Get a life.

No Bible is required.  John Quincy Adams took the oath on a copy of the U.S. Code because he said he was swearing to uphold the law -- not the gospel.  Very logical, I think.

No bible, no problem by me. I do question why there was not a bible used, though. Just a simple question, not a directive to find God.

Jules...it has to do with tradition. To refer to the most relevent book of the last thousand years as irrelevent is plain foolish. Which makes me question whether you have ever read the constitution? Sure is alot easier to say you have, take the time today. What is the point of making a comment like "...retarded rednecks...", is there an actual target here? Some brain damaged dude who lives in the woods maybe? Truly a scary picture, or were you speaking of people who think differently than you and happen to live in a different setting.

Kathy...I agree with you. Sadly, this is what the next four years will be like as payback for the last eight. 

No, he did not get it wrong twice.  The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court got it wrong, he's the Republican appointee to the court.  By the way, it does not say ANYWHERE that the president has to swear on a bible or anything else.  The oath says "I swear (or affirm)".  Those words are in there for a reason.  Try to reason why.  It might take some effort, I know, but it's better than jacking yourself off trying to make something illegitimate out of nothing.  Oh, that's what the last 8 years were.

Worthless without the bible?  Why is it we can't be happy with a government that stays out of our religious lives?  No where in the constitution does it say they have to use a bible at all, it is simply a tradition.  Traditions are nice, don't get me wrong, but it is kind of like turkey at Thanksgiving - you can still give thanks and eat ham if you'd like.  There simply is no rule saying that one way is the right way.

I'm with you Jules. Who cares if he used the Bible or not? He was freely elected our president and the Bible thumpin' rednecks need to just deal with it and move on. We put up with Bush for eight years, they can surely deal with Obama for four, hopefully eight.

Okedoke, It's a good thing that no one cares what you think.

Please get an education.  The Bible is a religious book that has nothing to do with government  Have you never heard of separation of church and state?

What Dave P. said...

Hailing from an area full of right wing religious fanatics, I can't help but wonder, when is this respectful, better treatment from the Right scheduled to start?

Paul:

I get a HUGE kick out of the dems calling for mutual respect, etc., etc., NOW after 8 years of horrific attacks on a standing president.

Hypocrisy to the core.

And, at the same time they are calling for this, Pelosi is calling for the criminal investigation of folks in the pub admin.

Yeah, sure.  All the dems are saying is we want to do what we want to do and we don't want you to squawk about it.

Not going to happen.  The left/dems have made their bed.  They now need to sleep in it.

They need to reap the rewards of the hate they sowed over the past 8 years.

Mimi... may I say, In my humble opinion - the right will treat President Obama better than the right treated President Bush.

Don't be so sure of that.   Rush Limbaugh and his dittoheads are publicly rooting for an Obama failure -- even though that would mean economic disaster for so many in this country. I guess for some people, political considerations take priority over the national welfare.  BTW, I'm a different Mimi from the original poster.

Let's not forget that many on the right didn't treat Bush all that well.  No intellegent person roots for a president's failure.  It doesn't make sense to not root for the home team.  Every time Bush made a flub I winced - in the end I just felt pity for him but surely did not hope he made anymore errors in judgement.

I did vote for Obama because I feel he has some new ideas.  Some will work, others won't, I am sure.  Either way, this whole discussion of a bible or who flubbed first seems like an extreme waste of time considering the gravity of the true matters at hand.

I have already heard that Bush wasn't really a conservative (republican), so you can't really expect the right to defend Bush.

Mimi (first poster) - I did not vote for Bush either election.  Nevertheless, I respected the office of the president and was prepared to respect Bush as well.  Up to the point he began lying to us about WMD so he could justify a war we should never have been in to start with.  Al Queda (I screwed up the spelling, I know) was in Afghanistan - not Iraq.  We needed to attack the man and religious zealots that attacked us - not a country that wasn't even involved.  Bush then accepted torture which is opposed to what MOST Americans and the Geneva Convention accept.  Bush then began wiretapping average citizens without warrant.  When Bush decided to run over all our beliefs as Americans, I quit respecting him - because he obviously had no respect for any of us or any of our laws.  Respect isn't guaranteed.  It should be given to begin with, but it can be lost.

So try respecting President Obama first.  If he betrays your trust, then it's fair to him to lose the respect.

How many times do we have to repeat this.  The Bible is not a necessary part of it at all.  Never has been.  Never should be.  It is not a religious ceremony.  It is a government ceremony.  Try to remember - separation of church and state - an extremely important part of our constitution.

Tom, get over yourself, you willwhine no matter what Obama does.

Who are we talking Tom?  You certainly need to get over yourself, like what Salem said and you don't want me to repeat that for that is precisely what you need to do...

Actually he began his term by protecting the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.  Unlike the previous administration which did all it could to subvert the Constitution.

You didn't mention anything about the new lobbying rules and the bit about more transparency in government or that part about freezing the pay of the top officials.  I suppose none of that benefits any of us citizens.

Heaven forbid we have a president who knows the government is the law but is not above the law and chooses to uphold that belief.

let's not forget who got us in all of this mess.GWB!!!!! GET OVER IT OBAMA IS YOUR PRESIDENT NOW!!!!

WOW TOM,  YOU ARE A NUT!!!!!!!  YOU SHOULD GO GET CHECKED OUT!!!

While i think you went off the deep end with the fellow terrorist comments, etc., i (who not only voted for, but campaigned for Obama) am VERY CONCERNED that the thing he would think has priority in a nation that is struggling financially is to deal with Guantanamo prisons, etc.  we have millions of people out of work and kids without health care!!  let's get on the important stuff.  the folks in prison should be in prison.  and as a Christian, I was appalled that someone who invoked God's help during his campaign would sit closed-mouth throughout the reading of the Lord's Prayer.  don;t pretend to love the Lord and then not recite one of the most fundamental prayers in Christianity.

You are so stupid as to be laughable.  He was following Chief Justic Robert's lead.  Roberts flubbed the words.  If you never ever read a newspaper, magazine or watched TV or were on the internet, you could look up the words yourself at the nearest local (public) library.  Obama stopped to try to give Roberts an opportunity to correct, as would any other courteous person.  This is so much bull@!$%# it's unbelievable.  Go back to school!!!!

lawgirl  -  excuse me, but "important stuff" first?  Like whether he read the Lord's Prayer?  Good grief!

While he will deal with the economy, he is clearly capable of multitasking, and he can also deal with the issues that have made us a world-wide pariah.

That does not free "terrorists" or anything of the sort, it just puts us back on the path towards being lawful and righteous in the eyes of most citizens and in the eyes of the world.

Wow, Tom - you are exactly the person who gives right wingers a bad name.  I mean, really - do you still think he is a Muslim with some secret agenda to ruin this country?  Won't you be dissapointed over the next four years.

I hope you can admit you are wrong as well as you can rant and rave.

he wasn't born in the US either. AND OMG he is left-handed!!!!  the world is going to end........................

The Constitution provides nothing to the government, it protects the citizens from the government . . . in fact, the Constitution gets in the way of "efficient" police work.

We wrote our Constitution with a wary eye on the King.  It was written by representatives of the people and forms the basis of our "freedom."

Tom, I'm scared, I'm scared. What should I do??? They're talking about lay-offs where I work, but I guess I should be worried that terrorists are coming to my small midwestern town to get me!!! Where are you going to hide?

under a rock, i assume.

It was Roberts who made the flub, President Obama tried to say the words correctly but was interupted by Roberts.

Obama had practiced and knew the words PROPERLY, Roberts was a screw up.

No! He was not. Sorry to be this defensive but I am happy to be even this definitive. There have been actually 2 other presidents who had to re-do the Oath. I am leaving this up to you to research. Good luck.

 No he's not the first president to re do the oath of office. Listening to the radio earlier, there was two other presidents who re did the oath of office, I can not re call the name of the presidents

Obama joined good company in Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge as U.S. presidents who have had to retake the oath of office because of unusual circumstances.

Arthur, who served from 1881 to 1885, was sworn in by the chief justice of the New York Supreme Court at his home in a private ceremony following the assassination of  president James Garfield. Arthur was sworn in a second time by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court two days later at the Capitol. ( Arthur's primary achievement was the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The passage of this legislation earned Arthur the moniker "The Father of Civil Service" and a favorable reputation among historians. "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired… more generally respected." Author Mark Twain, deeply cynical about politicians, conceded, "It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration.")

Coolidge, who served 1923 to 1929 (only pres. born on the 4th of July)  took the oath of office at his father's Vermont home following the death of president Warren Harding. Coolidge's father was a justice of the peace and administered the oath. Concerns about the jurisdiction of Coolidge's father led to Coolidge taking a second oath later in Washington. (He restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor's administration, and left office with considerable popularity. "he embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength.") 

No, he is the third.  Look it up.

OMG Mary, so Obama might have been in a hurry. He has a lot of work to do to fix this country and it won't matter how many of those Bibles are laying around. This country is still a mess!

wmolaw--it is not a ministerial act.  the oath is required by Article 2, Section 1, clause 8 of the Constitution--which states the president elect SHALL take the following oath...

lawgirl...you rock!

Now now Corwin... your rant trys to smother the very reason we are a great nation - THE RIGHT TO WHINE & MOAN!  Even the folks who publicly burn the American flag continue to be allowed to exist in this nation because of this nation.

Corwin:

Question, did you rant the same rant when GW was president?

Just wondering.

Hilarious!

Ahhh, but that's the beauty of our country. One can say and think whatever one wishes and still be a proud citizen!

 you can call it a rant if you want, but the truth stings...but to answer your question...yes I did say the same thing when GW was elected both terms! GW was elected by the people, as did President Obama through a process that was created by the people. I've said the same thing every since I've been of voting age. The situation is what it is, and if after four years you can really say that you are worse off than you were before...then vote for the other person. But every newly elected official deserves a chance to do the job in which they were elected.