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: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.


Even Joe Biden's ended with the statement, for repeating, at the end of the Oath -- although the VP Oath is otherwise entirely different from the POTUS.

Neither Oath includes the phrase in the Constitution. Whether or not to include it in the Oath is entirely up to the Oath-taker.

Roberts said he tacked in on AFTER the Oath. As a request for affirmation.


Where did Roberts say that he did it as a request for affirmation?


That is self-evident.

To what do you suggest he might have been referring, if not the Oath he just administered?



Then that's nothing more than your inference.



Oh, ok. Well, I am going to infer that he was referring to the Oath he just concluded. You have not offered another conclusion. I think my take is most reasonable and don't feel you have 'proven' otherwise.

Moving on.


I literally just did, you just don't like it because it disagrees with yours. You've already expressed your butt-hurtness that people are disagreeing with your theory instead of embracing it, so that's nothing new. Take your ball and go home, that'll teach me.

The fact remains that the Oath is the Oath. Adding words after the conclusion of it doesn't change the Oath. Your inference that the words after the Oath constitute a religious test is an opinion, not a fact. SCOTUS has ruled that forcing somebody to make a reference to God in the midst of an oath of office is unconstitutional. Allowing a person to do so after an oath is an exercise in First Amendment rights.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen


"What could be a reason why he would do such a thing?"


a reply to: JetBlackStare


"So what's the point of it all? To what end/purpose?"


I am afraid to undermine my thread with too much speculation. I'd actually love to discuss this, but it's an invitation to undo what is already pretty wild to begin with.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

The fact remains that the Oath is the Oath. Adding words after the conclusion of it doesn't change the Oath. Your inference that the words after the Oath constitute a religious test is an opinion, not a fact. SCOTUS has ruled that forcing somebody to make a reference to God in the midst of an oath of office is unconstitutional. Allowing a person to do so after an oath is an exercise in First Amendment rights.



Obama requested the Oath to be concluded with, "So help me God."

Obama's is the ultimate opinion that matters with regard to this issue. Roberts may have stated he asked the question AFTER the conclusion, but Obama technically gets the last say on this with his expressed wishes: Obama's Oath was concluded with his answer to Roberts' question: "So help me God."

It was an affirmation of the Oath.

It is self-evident watching and listening to the Oaths, in question.

You have your take, I have mine. But you have not proven me wrong by stating your differing opinion.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So what's the point of it all? To what end/purpose?


Very last ditch effort to try to refuse a black man the Presidency.

It's so obvious and disturbing.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

The fact remains that the Oath is the Oath. Adding words after the conclusion of it doesn't change the Oath. Your inference that the words after the Oath constitute a religious test is an opinion, not a fact. SCOTUS has ruled that forcing somebody to make a reference to God in the midst of an oath of office is unconstitutional. Allowing a person to do so after an oath is an exercise in First Amendment rights.



Obama requested the Oath to be concluded with, "So help me God."

Obama's is the ultimate opinion that matters with regard to this issue. Roberts may have stated he asked the question AFTER the conclusion, but Obama technically gets the last say on this with his expressed wishes: Obama's Oath was concluded with his answer to Roberts' question: "So help me God."

It was an affirmation of the Oath.

It is self-evident watching and listening to the Oaths, in question.

You have your take, I have mine. But you have not proven me wrong by stating your differing opinion.


Like Shamrock said...the Oath is the Oath.

The added "so help me god" isn't part of the Oath, the Oath was completed the line before that.

Obama, or anyone else, does not have the ability to change the Oath by wanting "so help me god" added after the Oath.

The confusion is that you are insisting they ADDED to the END of the Oath, when in actuality, it is something ADDITIONAL they said AFTER the Oath.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So what's the point of it all? To what end/purpose?


Very last ditch effort to try to refuse a black man the Presidency.

It's so obvious and disturbing.




Well, the bottom of the barrel has been scraped.

Time to exploit feelings of racial injustice and act like you are a *ugh* social justice warrior who takes such matters very seriously.

But you don't. Feelings of racial injustice are just merely something for you to exploit when you want to win a debate.

Ugly.

Thank god my heart cannot be fairly summarized by the exploitative partisan twisting of a post on ATS.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: kruphix

Since our T&C would likely consider calling anyone here a racist, my assumption here is that you refer to a conspiracy by people in government, maybe including Roberts himself, to create a thread of illegitimacy in the presidency due to their racist inclinations? If that is so, would it be possible that they would be sexist as well, and do similar to a female POTUS?

I had thought about that angle myself, and it seems that if that was really the intention, it likely would have resulted in the ballots being manipulated to prevent the result to begin with.

But if it were Roberts and a small cadre of folks....i can see how a small group might do something so that, at least in their mind, they made the presidency illegitimate. It wouldn't have any real effect other than being a somewhat private middle finger salute that they could then discuss privately.

Anyway, if the inclination is to call members of ATS racist, it might help to remember that this isn't the mudpit.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
MME, thank you for providing us with this interesting political topic not directly related to the miasma of garbage we've been subjected to for nigh on a year. It seems as though there are others who are trying to drag the current garbage in here but you're not letting them shoehorn it in, good for you!

Ok, a couple of questions and I'm sort of surprised no one has asked them, though not completely seeing as how partisan most posts have seemed to become during this horrid election cycle.

1) Why was he given the oath four times?
2) Has any other president taken the oath that many times? If so, who? If not, why not?

To the topic in general, this may seem like a minor detail to nitpick, but there are indeed murders roaming the streets due to misplaced punctuation in legal documents. A company I used to work for lost millions in lawsuits over misspelled words. The point being is that, in legal documents, details matter.

A lot.

This is the sort of detail many will skip over or misconstrue due to the nuances which apply to such things; the conversations so far in this thread bear that out.

Great thread!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ok..I did not consider that take.

It's wonderful.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

The fact remains that the Oath is the Oath. Adding words after the conclusion of it doesn't change the Oath. Your inference that the words after the Oath constitute a religious test is an opinion, not a fact. SCOTUS has ruled that forcing somebody to make a reference to God in the midst of an oath of office is unconstitutional. Allowing a person to do so after an oath is an exercise in First Amendment rights.



Obama requested the Oath to be concluded with, "So help me God."

Obama's is the ultimate opinion that matters with regard to this issue. Roberts may have stated he asked the question AFTER the conclusion, but Obama technically gets the last say on this with his expressed wishes: Obama's Oath was concluded with his answer to Roberts' question: "So help me God."

It was an affirmation of the Oath.

It is self-evident watching and listening to the Oaths, in question.

You have your take, I have mine. But you have not proven me wrong by stating your differing opinion.


And as I said before, Obama can "wish" to end the Oath with "suns out guns out bitches." It doesn't mean dick, because Obama's wishes don't trump the Constitution. The Oath is, again, a specific set of 35 words that are said in a specific order. No more, no less. As long as those words are said, and said in the order required, then the oath has been fulfilled. Anything that comes after that is not part of the oath. It is subsequent to the oath. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. A fact supported by the Constitution, court rulings, and your own evidence in the form of the affadavit supplied by Roberts.

Don't confuse your opinions with my facts. They're miles apart.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


Obama took the oath twice in 2009 because he and Chief Justice John Roberts messed it up a bit the first time and redid it a second time in private to quell any questions about Obama being president.
"The president is taking the oath twice this time because technically, Inauguration Day falls on Sunday, Jan. 20, and the modern tradition has been that when that happens, the president takes a private oath on Sunday and does it again in public for the big ceremonial event on Monday."

www.npr.org...



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok, that explains two of the iterations, what about the other two?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

1 - because Inauguration Day fell on a Sunday one term, so they had the public ceremony the following day, after the private and official one on the date required; Roberts botched the recitation of the oath, so they did it again so there would be no errors in the oath.

2 - FDR was sworn in four times, once for each term.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That was all four. They made a mistake on the first, so he did it again in private. That's two. The third was done in private because Jan 20 was on a Sunday, the fourth was the official ceremony the following day.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
MME, thank you for providing us with this interesting political topic not directly related to the miasma of garbage we've been subjected to for nigh on a year. It seems as though there are others who are trying to drag the current garbage in here but you're not letting them shoehorn it in, good for you!

Ok, a couple of questions and I'm sort of surprised no one has asked them, though not completely seeing as how partisan most posts have seemed to become during this horrid election cycle.

1) Why was he given the oath four times?
2) Has any other president taken the oath that many times? If so, who? If not, why not?

To the topic in general, this may seem like a minor detail to nitpick, but there are indeed murders roaming the streets due to misplaced punctuation in legal documents. A company I used to work for lost millions in lawsuits over misspelled words. The point being is that, in legal documents, details matter.

A lot.

This is the sort of detail many will skip over or misconstrue due to the nuances which apply to such things; the conversations so far in this thread bear that out.

Great thread!



Thanks, J&C.

Both Obama and Roberts flubbed up some words in the public Oaths in both 2009 & 2013.

In 2009, the flubbed up oath was first and it was reported Obama retook it, the next day, "out of an abundance of caution." The second attempt was recorded on audio, but not on video. A single photo allegedly taken of the Oath exists. I'll get back to that in a moment.

In 2013, Oath Day (January 20, before noon) was on a Sunday. So, Obama took the Oath twice because the ceremony was on Monday. The first attempt was not public although it was videotaped.

Obama was the SECOND president to take the Oath FOUR times. I cannot recall who the other was, but I am very certain he was the second.

I am of the opinion that words matter in an Oath. And religious wording matters, especially.

Clearly, words, intent, meaning all matter very much so when it comes to Oaths and the law.

Even the act of raising your right hand matters...although amputees have been considered by the Courts.

Going back to the fact that Obama's second attempt at the Oath, in 2009, is not on video, but was allegedly photographed (there is a photo showing him raising his right hand in front of Roberts) -- the photo was actually taken two and a half minutes AFTER the reported Oath was administered -- according to the EXIF data.

So, we honestly don't know if he even raised his right hand for that Oath.

Yep. There is a lot of nuance here. And, again, I wonder if it was deliberate.

Might have been. It takes a leap of faith to decide it's all meaningless and unintended. A leap I refuse to take.


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



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
So after all your failed attempts to claim President Obama's Birth Certificates were forgeries...

You are still trying to claim President Obama is not really the President.

8 years of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Pathetic really. It really shows a obsession over President Obama.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
Very last ditch effort to try to refuse a black man the Presidency.

It's so obvious and disturbing.


So in the future some people can try and claim "President Obama the black man was not really the POTUS"



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: kruphix
Very last ditch effort to try to refuse a black man the Presidency.

It's so obvious and disturbing.


So in the future some people can try and claim "President Obama the black man was not really the POTUS"


Please see this comment by BigFatFurryTexan:

Comment


Perhaps you might clarify what you mean by your comment, too?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Zaph and Sham already covered the wherefores and whytos of multiple administerings of the oath, thank you though for the additional commentary.

I'm with you as to the nuances which apply to this particular scenario. It is quite subtle and will fly over most people's heads.

As to why this was done in the first place, that is indeed up in the air and could be for a variety of reasons, though you can be certain the best wishes of the American people are not included with them.

Our nation is in a sad state right now and I worry for what the future brings. Not for myself, but for my kids as they will have to deal with the consequences of this for far longer than I. And I feel powerless to affect any changes to those consequences that they had no part in creating.

Which is why I cannot understand how some people are able to excuse every horrid action taken by our government due to partisan thinking.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 05:45 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.



I suppose if you were an atheist you could probably affirm the oath to be polite, but true, what would have happened had Obama said something?




top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join