Liz is obsessing about the fact that, while Obama did re-take the Oath of Office, he didn't do it with a Bible. She feels this, coupled with the fact of the near total "Obama-mania" sweeping the world, the Obama is a prime candidate for the fundamentalist version of the Anti-Christ.
Obviously, having heard (I couldn't watch it live, but it was on the radio in my office) the swearing-in of both Biden and Obama, I'm aware that Obama is blameless in the "Oath-flub". Roberts was obviously nervous, and Obama had, undoubtedly, memorized the Oath so as to ensure that he had it down-pat and would look good on TV. When Roberts prompted him with the wrong wording, Obama froze up... understandably so, too. It might look worse had he repeated the WRONG Oath, than if he simply did what he did.
My point is more along this lines... Did he HAVE to retake the Oath? Was there a Constitutional question prior to his retaking it? If you read the XX Amendment, there is NO mention of an Oath, only that the new President and Vice President take office at noon on the 20th of January. All other requirements, according to the XX Amendment, had been met... duly elected, Congressional certification of the election results, a new Congress waiting for the new Executive Branch... all was done, the only question was the "swearing in".
People's beef mainly seemed to be that the Oath as administered on Jan 20 was "reworded"... but Presidents have been adding words since John Adams took office. There is no place in the Oath where the Constitution says the new CIC must say "...so help me God." Yet, 49 of the last 55 times the Oath has been administered, those words were added... usually at the prompting of the Justice administering it. Certainly there is no requirement that the Oath be administered on a Bible, and at least one Muslim has taken his Oath of Office on a Qu'ran (a Representative whose name I forget)... and many have NOT used a Bible at all.
I'm glad he retook the Oath, if only to avoid the drama of giving his detractors the ability to use the question it raises against him, and ultimately, against the country. Just thought I'd bring it up, so see if anyone else had any thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
FIRST of all...please don't post my erratic-at-best musings on YOUR site. I don't honestly believe in the very idea of an Anti-Christ. There is enough evil in all of us to embody THAT spirit in and of itself. HOWEVER, my previous dealings with the evangelical right and their ridiculous "rapture" theory etc...reminded me that this man fits the bill of the adored but very evil "Antichrist" to come. When Obama is seated on the throne in Mecca, then I will worry. Until then, I will watch the play unfold as the country slowly realizes that this man is indeed NOT going to be capable of fulfilling all of his promises.
Post a Comment