It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Take a wild ride with me down a rabbit hole - Barack Obama was never President

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
A logical thinker wouldn't think this.

Rolls eyes.


What would a logical thinker, think?




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
... Gotta love Jersey mikes WiFi
edit on 19-10-2016 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DrumStickNinja

lol...

Thanks, I intended for this to be a fun post.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're talking a stretch there in regards to Hillary affirming the oath of office, however, if she does become president through whatever failure if the system, I would expect her oath to end in "all hail Satan."

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Just to clarify for me here. The " so help me God'' repeated is just that, repeating the oath as the justice presents it.

But when the justice asks''so help YOU God, and is followed by 'so help ME God, this is replying to a question which is unconstitutional. Is this the premise of the idea?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ha! I am afraid we are going to get stuck with her, like it or not.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Just to clarify for me here. The " so help me God'' repeated is just that, repeating the oath as the justice presents it.

But when the justice asks''so help YOU God, and is followed by 'so help ME God, this is replying to a question which is unconstitutional. Is this the premise of the idea?



Yes.

It's in the official transcripts as question and Obama even nods as he answers in the three available videos.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, but the use of the word 'god' does not denote any PARTICULAR religion.

That's what the language of the document prohibits.

Also, the mere asking of the question does not imply requirement.

Its an add-on and thus optional.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Look, you put together a very well-researched thread, here, but I must say, you're basing your conclusion on this conspiracy on something would never, ever be upheld in a court of law.

Here's the thing--and I've spent quite a few years directly as a paralegal at the federal level and now dealing with federal trials in a different way--like you appropriately noted, the "so help me god" phrase so often heard at the end of the oath is NOT mandatory in any way, shape, or form in order to be properly sworn into office.

Yes, Obama requested to state that at the end of the oath, but even so, it's not a PART of the oath, but an addition to--as long as he says the oath properly, whatever else he adds on or messes up at the end (after) or that the Chief Justice messes up at the end (after) the oath is irrelevant when it comes to what MUST be said during the swearing in (per the Constitution of the U.S.).

I like your research, I like your enthusiasm, but I don't like your logic on this one.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not if the flying spaghetti monster returns, and he's due anytime.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, but the use of the word 'god' does not denote any PARTICULAR religion.

That's what the language of the document prohibits.

Also, the mere asking of the question does not imply requirement.

Its an add-on and thus optional.


We have the freedom FROM religion.

Had Obama responded to the question with, "No," he would not have affirmed his Oath.

Traditionally, the phrase is spoken by the Justice and the Oath-taker simply repeats it...or not.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
S+F! The work alone to bring us quality content deserves it. Of course you go trashing both parties and piss scores of folks off.

edit on 19-10-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Look, you put together a very well-researched thread, here, but I must say, you're basing your conclusion on this conspiracy on something would never, ever be upheld in a court of law.



Obama is the only person that could ask a court to find it Unconstitutional.

Whether he did so, or not, doesn't change the fact that it is Unconstitutional.

ETA: The addition of the words "So help me God," are left entirely to the President-elect. Obama made his wishes clear in the affidavit I posted. Justice Roberts did not follow Obama's instruction about concluding the Oath with that phrase.

Instead, Roberts took it upon himself to deliver the words AS A QUESTION, as an affirmation of the Oath.

Whether Obama took it to a Court, or not, it was Unconstitutional because Obama's expressed wishes were not followed.
edit on 19-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I know...it sucks to be me sometimes. =)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
originally posted by: Sillyolme
A logical thinker wouldn't think this.

Rolls eyes.


What would a logical thinker, think?


That anything that challenges the Criminal Media, the Two Party System, Globalism, Obama, the DNC, Hillary, their campaigns, etc... that anything that challenges any of that is illogical. And anything that challenges all of that is deplorable.


Paparazzi 2016!
edit on 19-10-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Down the Rabbit hole we go then .......... so, POTUS says "so help me god" ........ therefore implying that he needs help when in office.

To that effect, please advise who God is, is he accountable as appointed (through the oath as recorded) helper of the POTUS?

Anyone got his / her number?, i have a couple of questions for him / her

Thanks



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting theory, however, Im not sure the use of the word 'God' indicates any PARTICULAR religious test, as the language of The Constitution prohibits, rather a quite generic one.

Like you said though, he was apparently free to decline with a "no" in response to that question. I dont think it could be used to deny him the office. Although it would piss off the religious folk im sure.


"God" plus the question mark = religious test.

As an atheist, I would not be able to affirm my oath with that question.



As an atheist, you would not ask the Chief Justice to include the line after completing your oath of office.

Obama did.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Pretty sovereign citizen-esque interpretation of the law.

All the clause states is that no person can be forced to adhere to a religion or religious doctrine as a condition of taking office.

The oath is what the oath is. Once the oath is repeated and affirmed, the oath is affirmed. The president (who after taking the oath is now the president) has the option of adding a prayer or reference to god at the conclusion at the oath. The manner of that prayer has no bearing whatsoever on the oath itself.


It is unlike any Oath I have found.

The question had no place as an affirmation of the Oath.



It's not part of the Oath. And that's where your entire theory comes crumbling down like the house of cards that it is. It's said after the oath of office is completed. You're including it as part of the oath, which it is not.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So who's president?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Even if this were true, Obama's Presidency wouldn't be illegal. We'd just change the way oaths are done for the next President going forward. This is a big deal out of nothing and I view it as a pathetic attempt to try to de-legitimize Obama's Presidency one last time. The guys on his way out for crying out loud! Give him a break...



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join