Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by JustAThought
Our system of government is based on Christian religion and its morals and precepts. We can not operate outside of it. Witout moral code law is useless regulation and taxation. In God we Trust.
Originally posted by Cio88
Just to clear the air .. It was not the Justice that messed the 1st oath up ... It was Obama.
Originally posted by Cio88
Just to clear the air .. It was not the Justice that messed the 1st oath up ... It was Obama. The MSM does not want to admit that their messiah messed up.
Originally posted by AnCap
... The only value it has is sentimental and traditional. Perhaps we should focus on defending the more important parts of the constitution rather than this meaningless one? Just a thought.
Craig, the White House lawyer, said in a statement Wednesday evening: "We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday. Yet the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time."
The Constitution is clear about the exact wording of the oath and as a result, some constitutional experts have said that a do-over probably wasn't necessary but also couldn't hurt. Two other previous presidents have repeated the oath because of similar issues, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur.
The Constitution allows the President to either swear or affirm the Oath. They have the same legal weight but an affirmation is seen as removing some of the religious connotations of swearing. Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover are the only presidents to have affirmed rather than sworn the Oath, with Pierce placing his hand on a book of law rather than the more common Bible. John Quincy Adams also used a book of law but swore the Oath rather than affirming it. The written Constitution and the established protocols thereby allow the President to theoretically be of any religious persuasion.
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Of course, there are going to be people in tinfoil hats saying that his presidency is illigetiment anyway.
Originally posted by slicobacon
Liberals will always say Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004, and conservatives will always question Obama being born in Kenya.
Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
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.
Originally posted by bignick
Constitution this, Constitution that!
They formed America and they get to choose what to do with it so stop with your ignorant redneck mentality.