Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obamas second Oath, Constitution not included!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I just heard on the news that Obama had to take the oath of office a second time because of the screw up that was made with his first oath of office, the thing is is that I heard on the news that there is I have not heard him say ANYTHING about up holding the constitution! At least I have not heard it being mention, either all the news companies cut it off before it's mentioned or it wasn't mentioned at all!

If you have a link to the audio or even a video of it, I'd love to see it.

Even though I don't like Obama and think he's a shill and a globalist liar, I would at least like to have peace of mind knowing that I may be wrong and that he did take the oath including the Constitution.

I want Obama to do the right thing, but just from seeing all his shadiness, I don't believe he is.

So from what I've seen, the Constitution is not included!

Star & Flag, this is important, well, to me at least!

news.yahoo.com...

-Lahara




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRandom1
 


I saw a photo of this second swearing in ceremony. There was no bible used.





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I just think you guys are jumping to conclusions, just because the media (which are generally liars anyways) dont give you the minute by minute details on his 2nd swearing in doesnt mean he used the constitition and bible.

The constitution is very important but i dont see why were talking about the bible. Separation of church and state anyone? Its just a damn book anyways. Swearing on it doesnt mean a thing.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Anybody know which President that is in the oil painting? Just asking to see if there might be any symbolism to the picture.

He sure seems to be careful to do everything in the strictest Constitutional way. Well, almost everything.


Peace



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I think Jefferson or Hamilton...........



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
There is nothing in the constitution that states he must put his hand on a bible. The do over was to make sure that the oath was repeated EXACTLY as prescribed in the constitution. The Chief Justice was trying to rely on memory and screwed up the oath.
They were just making sure everything is nice and legal so no one will be coming back later saying his presidency is illigetimate because he didn't say the oath of office correctly.
Of course, there are going to be people in tinfoil hats saying that his presidency is illigetiment anyway.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Has anyone seen a video of the 2nd swearing in of Obama as President? If there is not a video and only sound with only a still photo why?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
For the sake of African Americans and any others who want to hear this recorded as a part of national(ism) pride and posterity, they don't want to hear the first one having been fumbled. Most likely some picture of Obama and a recording when you push some button? idk. The way they are marketing his election makes me sick. But that's what they want, so let them have it.


Many jobs have been created to exploit this historical event. It will be interesting to hear if they were in the US rather than China.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The second oath was done as a safety measure so that people couldn't go around saying that the absence of one word in the oath means that Obama isn't the real president. It's not the first time that a president has been sworn in away from the public eye. I think Johnson was actually sworn in on a plane ride or something like that.

As far as the bible is concerned, he doesn't necessarily have to have his hand on the bible, I've never seen that written anywhere as a requirement. Besides, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state remember? The oath was taken either way and the presence of a bible doesn't change that.

I will say one more thing: All politicians are liars, ESPECIALLY when considering the two major parties. People need to stop being so shocked to find out that a politician has lied. We should expect it by now.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I was going to start a thread here on this subject but you beat me too it so I'll respect the forums standards and continue here.



Article 2 of the the United States Constitution prescribes that the President must take the oath before he enters in the execution of his Office.

The 20th Amendment; however states that the terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

It has been suggested that the wording of the 20th Amendment, that makes no reference to the oath, superseded the requirement set out in article two of the Constitution, that the oath be taken before the President begins the discharge of his duties.



en.wikipedia.org...


The Oath of office was designed to be a formal verbal contract in place of a signature on a piece of paper, for ceremonial purposes. Obama became president by virtue of law at noon on the 20th.

The requirement to say this Oath was removed from law by the 20th Amendment.

That he misspoke the Oath on the 20th makes it invalid. An Oath must be repeated verbatim or it is not lawful.

And there is no direct evidence that he swore to uphold the constitution, or even that the supposed second Oath ceremony ever happened.

The Truth fears no investigation, and loyers speaketh with forked tongue...

What we have here is covert suppression of the US Constitution.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Malichai]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Audio Here

He DOES say the oath in its entirety and does not use a bible. There's no requirement to use anything at all. You can swear of a piece of chocolate or nothing at all.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
From the addition of the many conspiracist's point of view...
We can make cryptic mountains of anything he does. Religion and the fulfillment of prophecies; teh hosts and the great hosts, riding the beast or the dark horse, Clones of Obama being sworn in
The dark pope entities....etc. Have at it.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Audio Here

He DOES say the oath in its entirety and does not use a bible. There's no requirement to use anything at all. You can swear of a piece of chocolate or nothing at all.


Moving on....


"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."


The constitution, that piece of paper, is preserved, protected and defended. Its sealed inside a bullet proof container.

There is nothing in the oath about upholding the constitution. No president has even been required by law to uphold the constitution.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
The second oath was done as a safety measure so that people couldn't go around saying that the absence of one word in the oath means that Obama isn't the real president....



Obama became President at noon on the 20th by virtue of law under the 20th amendment. All he needed was to have the electoral votes recorded and time to reach that point.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Malichai]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
There is nothing in the constitution that states he must put his hand on a bible. The do over was to make sure that the oath was repeated EXACTLY as prescribed in the constitution. The Chief Justice was trying to rely on memory and screwed up the oath.
They were just making sure everything is nice and legal so no one will be coming back later saying his presidency is illigetimate because he didn't say the oath of office correctly.
Of course, there are going to be people in tinfoil hats saying that his presidency is illigetiment anyway.


I beg to differ. The tinfoil hat people contend that his presidency (and that of any other president since around 1913, if not earlier) is tantamount to an irrelevancy.

It's the partisan zealots who contend there is some other technical problem with the rituals and traditions involved in his ascension to power.

Also the OP wants to know if there is a complete recording of the event, and did not ever state that anything was invalid. I too would like to hear it, if it is actually available. And no, it's not enough that the reporters claimed to have witnessed it, it should be recorded and documented for posterity. It's just proper form.

If you're hunting to pick a fight with die-hard Republicans, or other such people, at least do it right.

Edit to add: Some presidents simply responded "I do" to the oath, and THAT was considered a satisfactory commitment.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Why was this done?

Is this an acknowledgement that Obama's first oath was non-binding?

If so, does that mean that America was without a President for a day? Or does it mean Biden was President for a day?

Interesting legalities



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
It's not the first time that a president has been sworn in away from the public eye. I think Johnson was actually sworn in on a plane ride or something like that.


They were just discussing this on BBC Radio 5 - apparently it's has to be done twice before. As you say, it's just to stop some disaffected person starting an expensive and puerile court case arguing he's not the President.


As far as the bible is concerned, he doesn't necessarily have to have his hand on the bible


Again, exactly what they said on the Radio


As for no video footage - that's because they want people remembering the big impressive ceremony from earlier in the week rather than a more technically correct low key one.


Once again a possible conspiracy is shown to really be just a case of human incompetence



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Malichai
 


I understand that, but do you really think that if this WASN'T done, people would just sit around and justify it with an Amendment. The public just isn't that intelligent. All it would take would be ONE jack*** to come along and say that the exclusion of one word made the whole thing invalid and people would be up in arms.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


Any Oath of office must be repeated verbatim or it is not lawful.

But you hit it on the head. This was all done for public consumption. They dance around this and that without looking closer at the real meaning of the Oath in law.

The President of USA is a dictator. The perceptions of the masses allow this to continue. I remember when I was little reading through the constitution and thinking that it was a great document that enshrined all I believed to be true about our nation and what we represent.

Later in life I looked again with a skeptical eye and an understanding of the difference between the implied meanings of words in the media and every day life, and the meaning of words under law. Its a great deception.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Ok .. something is going on, I don’t like it.

You mean to tell me that after weeks of prep, Roberts still gets the most important statement one could ever say, flub!!! ??? grrrrr.. yea.. this is history !!!! You know, I hope BO really does do something for us, but, this….hmmm..






new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join