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

a reply to: Urantia1111

It was a request to AFFIRM the Oath after it had concluded.
Obama requested the phrase be used to CONCLUDE THE OATH.

Again, I don't deny this is all very nuanced...but I happen to think it was deliberately nuanced. And I think it was meaningful.

You don't. Moving on.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Question:

What does this matter?

Lets say you are right and Obama totally trashed the oath each and ever time. He still executed the role of presidential office and everything that went with it for 8 years and he was the "democratically" elected president anyway. So given that why would this even matter?

Also if Obama was never POTUS the who was under your theory?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand your argument, and I disagree with your conclusion, especially because you need the SCOTUS to determine such unconstitutionality, and that has not happened, therefore you just THINK that it was unconstitutional.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand your argument, and I disagree with your conclusion, especially because you need the SCOTUS to determine such unconstitutionality, and that has not happened, therefore you just THINK that it was unconstitutional.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this.

Basically all the OP has done is expressed his opinion that Obama's oath was unconstitutional.

To declare it was a fact he would have to have the Supreme court rule that Obama's oath was unconstitutional, something that i highly doubt would ever happen.

So given that the entirety of the OP is just some random dudes opinion on the Internet.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Question:

Why does this really matter.

Lets say you are right and Obama totally trashed the oath each and ever time. He still executed the role of presidential office and everything that went with it for 8 years and he was the "democratically" elected president anyway. So given that why would this even matter, its not like he can jump in a time machine and change it and its not like it really matters now so why does this matter?

Also if Obama was never POTUS the who was under your theory?

I thought it might be a fun break from the current election threads. Nothing more. It doesn't matter OR it does matter...that's up to the readers.

I thought it was clear that I speculated -- read as: let myself wonder -- if Joe Biden was President. After all, he did take a Constitutional Oath to the Office of Vice President. Maybe he was delivered the President version behind closed doors?

I freely admit that is pure speculation -- intended to let your mind wander...or not.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

One thing i totally agree with you on is that its nice to have a political discussion on ATS that is not about he and she who shall not be named.

Otherwise I think you have read way too much into this.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand your argument, and I disagree with your conclusion, especially because you need the SCOTUS to determine such unconstitutionality, and that has not happened, therefore you just THINK that it was unconstitutional.

No. Unconstitutional acts occur all the time and no Court ever issues a ruling. Whether the Court hears a case or not does not determine the legality of an act.

Some murderers get away with murder. It doesn't make murder legal.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: kruphix

Well, you are wrong about that. It matters very much how the Oath is administered. If you would take the time to research that a bit, you would know that.

And you can save your nasty tone.

The words, "So help me God," at the end of the Oath of Office have been deliberated since Washington was president.

Ok, well I guess we have never had a valid President.

Great!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who cares if this is true, real, fake, or made up by the OP's neighbors dog?

Its has some merit, until you get to the point Shamrock6 is making (the wording of the oath is set, and is run as a command/script. What comes before/after cannot mute it, as it is a legal quote).

The question of "What would happen if Obama said "no" after the final sentence int he oath?" is worth discussing. It has nothing to do with the current election. It has no real bearing on the last 8 years (history is set....what happened happened, no do-overs).

I completely fail to see where partisanship has any legitimte part in this discussion. Someone found something, then brought it here to be discussed. Its not like Alex Jones is running this on his website or something, so it has nothing to do with the multitude of unfounded CT's out there today. Maybe if some partisan nut chooses to beat the drum on this, ill see your point. For now, im happy to appreciate a rare display of original thought being brought to us to discuss. Its like freaking manna from the heavens, to be honest.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

One thing i totally agree with you on is that its nice to have a political discussion on ATS that is not about he and she who shall not be named.

Otherwise I think you have read way too much into this.

Great. Thanks for finding something nice to say.

I happen to think words are very important when it comes to Oaths.

Agree to disagree.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand your argument, and I disagree with your conclusion, especially because you need the SCOTUS to determine such unconstitutionality, and that has not happened, therefore you just THINK that it was unconstitutional.

No. Unconstitutional acts occur all the time and no Court ever issues a ruling. Whether the Court hears a case or not does not determine the legality of an act.

Some murderers get away with murder. It doesn't make murder legal.

Illegal and Unconstitutional are two very different things.

No act is Unconstitutional until the Supreme Court deems it is.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I understand your argument, and I disagree with your conclusion, especially because you need the SCOTUS to determine such unconstitutionality, and that has not happened, therefore you just THINK that it was unconstitutional.

This kind of goes without saying, right?

I mean, i claim that me not being able to own a shoulder mounted rocket is unconstitutional. Of course, SCOTUS disagrees with me. But they are wrong.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The question of "What would happen if Obama said "no" after the final sentence int he oath?"

Few thoughts on this because your right even as a bit of a thought experiment its a interesting question.

Firstly I think that if he was planning on saying no he would not bother requesting the line.

Secondly I think if he did say not he would be impeached because he is implying that he will not faithfully execute the role of office and as such could not be trusted as POTUS.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
I don't see a question and don't think it's a big deal anyway. Like another poster said, this is pedantic. Other presidents have made mistakes in their oath and you know I don't think anybody cares too deeply about it, if it's completed in good spirit. And another thing is Obama is "nodding" the entire time, so him "nodding" after "So help YOU god" is not what you think ti's.

Do note I respect your thread offering. YOu did put a lot of work into it even if I think you stared into the abyss too long.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its has some merit, until you get to the point Shamrock6 is making (the wording of the oath is set, and is run as a command/script. What comes before/after cannot mute it, as it is a legal quote).

Ah, but Obama expressly stated he wanted the Oath to conclude with, "So help me God."

That conclusion was up to him.

I think it's debatable whether it was a lawful Oath or not because his wishes were not followed.

I appreciate the sentiment in your comment so much though. You made it worth it for me to draft and post this thread.

Here's the thing though, if it was a deliberate attempt to de-legitimize Obama and make him "not really the President," why wait until almost 8 years of his Presidency to reveal the "trick?"

And would that "trick" really stand in a court of law?
I don't think so.

He is and was the President of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

I appreciate the effort it took you to make the thread though, even if I think your premise is not an accurate expression of what happened.

AB

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

In light of what Shamrock points out, however....then it becomes a religious test which disqualified him.

originally posted by: kruphix
No act is Unconstitutional until the Supreme Court deems it is.

Again, that is incorrect. The SCOTUS may merely FIND that an act is Unconstitutional and the act was Unconstitutional BEFORE that FINDING.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I actually didn't wait with this topic. I used to run a blog and posted on this, at the time. It was early 2011.

And I do think if Obama wanted to take such a case to the SCOTUS and declare his wishes were not followed and, instead, he was given a religious test by way of 'affirmation' after the conclusion of the Oath, he would have a very good case.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

True, but spinning a narrative that Obama's Presidency is illegitimate because of it is stupid. Like I said earlier, if this really became a sticking point to some lobby or another the government would just change the way the oath is done. It wouldn't retroactively say that previous Presidents weren't really Presidents. That's a spin that only a right wing partisan person would spin.

Really? Only a "right wing partisan"? If I remember correctly, Bush "stole" the election because of "chads."