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.
originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye
His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.
"So help me God" means nothing.
He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.
"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.
I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.
originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye
His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.
"So help me God" means nothing.
He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.
"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.
I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.
link"
Chief Justice Roberts' reply was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.
No, he did not. Obama requested that the phrase "So help me God" be used TO CONCLUDE the Oath. Reread the affidavit I posted in my OP.
Roberts stated he delivered it AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH, as a question of affirmation.
Yes, there are nuances here...and I believe they were all very deliberate.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: schuyler
I am saying Roberts delivered the line as a question. That is the difference.
I can find no other Justice that did this.
ETA: And, in fact, Joe Biden's Oath was not administered that way either.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
From a technical standpoint, this is very interesting. Whether it was meant to create a straw man presidency for some reason...i hvae no clue. But from the perspective of standardizing the process....this is a perfect example of why corporations do silly things like only ask the preapproved questions during an interview, and make sure all candidates get those same questions asked in the same way.
Technicalities. Some may call it pedantic....but murderers have walked because of them.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Technicalities. Some may call it pedantic....but murderers have walked because of them.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's a spin that only a right wing partisan person would spin.
originally posted by: jonnywhite
Watched the videos. In the Reagan and Kennedy oaths the Chief Justice says "So help YOU God". I watched the Obama videos and I don't see a question. You're mistaking it for one. I think you're looking at this too deeply. Sometimes when you stare into the abyss, it stares back at you.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye
His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.
"So help me God" means nothing.
He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.
"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.
I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.
Again, reread the affidavit I posted in my OP. Obama's expressed wishes were to CONCLUDE THE OATH with the phrase, "So help me God."
Roberts stated his intent was to deliver the line AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH.
Again, it's all so very nuanced, I tend to think it was a deliberate 'mistake.'
ETA: Here is the affidavit and portion I included on it from my OP:
"Below is the affidavit stating Obama’s wishes and Chief Justice Roberts’ intent:
link
Wikipedia noted what Roberts’ expressed intent was, as follows, with regard to a lawsuit concerning the separation of church & state:
link"
Chief Justice Roberts' reply was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's a spin that only a right wing partisan person would spin.
And that is a statement that only a political hack could believe is true.
Jesus Christ, i'd do anything to be able to talk about politics with people, without them throwing out this stupid "right wing" or "liberal wingnut" nonsense.
That kind of thinking is so far beneath us as Americans. I only hope that I can live to see people actually realize it.
You DO realize this is a conspiracy site, right?