Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Oaths, Bibles and Presidents

By Garance Franke-Ruta
President Obama may be a historic figure, but his awkward swearing-in ceremony and subsequent do-over of the oath of office don't make him unique in the American historical record. Nor is he the first president to take the oath of office without a Bible, as occurred during his second swearing-in ceremony last night.

According to records compiled by the Architect of the Capitol and maintained by the Library of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible at his first swearing-in, in 1901.

And when Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on Air Force One at Love Field Airport in Dallas after the assassination of President Kennedy, he used a Roman Catholic missal, a liturgical text often containing Latin prayers and used by priests at the altar.

"I had given this Bible or missal to the judge on Air Force One, which I had taken off the side table in the President's bedroom in Air Force One," Democratic strategist Lawrence F. O'Brien, who had served as director of Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign, recalled in an oral history interview with the LBJ Library in 1986. It turned out not to be a Bible at all, though it was "a book with a cross on the cover, leather-bound" and new.

"I had not opened it to look at its contents," he said, "and I guess at times I referred to it as a Bible and somebody reminded me that it probably wasn't a Bible, it was a missal. It's a missal, I assume. Why it was on the [plane] -- I think it probably was a gift that was very recent, maybe even in the course of that trip. I recall the cardboard box, the cover had been taken off and placed on the bottom and it was in this box. And I took it out of this box."

Indeed, the use of the Bible at presidential swearings-in is a matter of tradition rather than law.

"That tradition just was begun by George Washington and has been pursued ever since, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a Bible," notes Lawrence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School and an informal adviser to the 44th president.

"If a nonbeliever should ever assume the presidency, one would assume there would not be any religious symbolism associated with it," he added. Use of such religious materials is permitted by the Constitution, but not mandated by it. The words "so help me God" that commonly follow the presidential oath of office are also traditional and not specified in the constitution.

The oath itself is of some significance, however, as it is the only oath whose exact terms are specified in the Constitution, Tribe notes. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:

Before he enters on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: -- "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 use of "swear (or affirm)" in the oath is important to unpack when considering the question of the tradition of swearing on a Bible, notes Richard Epstein, a constitutional scholar and professor at the University of Chicago Law School, because the word "swear" has a religious connotation traceable back to the Test Act of 1673 that excluded from public office individuals unwilling to take communion in the Church of England.

Knowledge of these "historical valences" reveals that the presidential oath of office laid out by the Founders in the Constitution is also "basically a repudiation of religious affiliation as a requirement for the presidency," says Epstein.

Tribe observes that when the oath has been misstated and not corrected, nothing happens, as the presidency devolves upon the elected successor upon the departure of the previous president from the White House. In 1929, Herbert Hoover, following the words said by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, used the word "maintain" instead of "protect" in the oath, Tribe noted. He did not re-do his oath, and he remained president.

Still, "When the oath is not stated as specified it creates an opening for people to raise questions," says Tribe. Obama's restatement "is obviously a reassuring thing, because it eliminates needless quibbling. The retaking of the oath was obviously a sensible step for the White House to arrange."

The "doctrine of prescription" that's been with us since Roman times and is at the basis of, for example, common law marriage -- where acts create legal standing, though only after five to seven years -- may have been something considered by Obama's lawyers in making the decision he should retake the oath, says Epstein.

"The last thing we need is to have doubts about the status of presidential decrees for seven years, or four in this case," he said, even though the doctrine is designed to mitigate the impact of mistakes in formalities.

Obama is the seventh president to have restated his oath of office. Two, Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge, did so after their presidents died abruptly, and four did so because Inauguration Day fell on a Sunday.

Arthur took the oath for the first time at his Lexington Ave. home in New York in the wee hours of Sept. 20, 1881, following the death of President James Garfield, who had been wounded by an assassin's bullet in July. Arthur restated the oath at the U.S. Capitol two days later.

Coolidge's repetition of the oath followed a similar course. He took the oath for the first time at 2:47 a.m. on Aug. 2, 1923, after being roused from sleep following the death of Warren Harding. "I was awakened by my father coming up the stairs calling my name," Coolidge later recounted in his autobiography. "I noticed that his voice trembled. As the only times I had ever observed that before were when death had visited our family, I knew that something of the gravest nature had occurred..."

Coolidge had a Bible on the table before which he stood while taking the oath, but did not lay his hand upon it "as it is not the practice in Vermont or Massachusetts to use a Bible in connection with the administration of an oath," he said. Coolidge was at his family homestead in Vermont at the time.

Questions were later raised about the propriety of his being sworn-in by his father, a notary public, leading a federal judge to readminister the oath two weeks later.

The four presidents who restated their oaths of office publicly because Inauguration Day fell on a Sunday are: Rutherford B. Hayes; Woodrow Wilson; Dwight Eisenhower; and Ronald Reagan in 1985.

Obama is the first president to have had a private swearing-in ceremony after his public one, rather than the reverse.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 22, 2009; 6:37 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , The Debate Rages On...  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Cheney: Libby Deserved a Pardon
Next: Obama Tours the White House Press Room

Comments

Main Entry: ig·nore

1 : to refuse to take notice of

2 : to reject (ignore a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, no one else is here, and I'm leaving.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Hahahahahahaha!

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

If anyone NOT on the Ignore List wants the link to the Keyes lawsuit, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Post the link to the text of the Keyes lawsuit, if you have it.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Anyone?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Let's get this straight. Someone is placed on the ignore list for not reading the Keyes lawsuit. But the link to it on the Internet is not provided so the person can read it.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

If anyone NOT on the Ignore List has any questions about the Ignore List, please let me know that too.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Aha, now we know the REAL reason I'm on JakeD's ignore list. He can't answer MY questions. That should be the clearest sign yet of the reliability of my evidence and the flimsiness of his.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So you DON'T really want me to read the Keyes lawsuit, since you won't provide the link. What are you afraid I'll discover?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

If anyone NOT on the Ignore List wants to discuss Oaths, Bibles and/or Presidents, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, If you want anyone to read the Keyes lawsuit, you need to post the link to the text.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]"

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am not disputing Obama's American citizenship -- which is why he could get a passport, become a Senator, etc. -- simply whether he was born in the U.S. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an American citizen too, but he cannot become President either. No one has seen Obama's LONG FORM birth certificate to verify that fact.

If anyone NOT on the Ignore List for refusing to answer my questions when I answered all of their questions wants to discuss that in a civil manner, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

passport, not passort.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I also wonder how a mother who had just given birth four days earlier could have recuperated sufficiently to have gotten herself and her newborn infant all the way from Kenya to Hawaii within four days, given the arduous nature of international travel in 1961. Such a scenario hardly sounds reasonable, does it?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

Such a birth certificate is comparable to what I submitted when applying for my passort (except I was born in another state). It is the standardly accepted birth documentation in this country. Or do you favor invalidating everyone's passports and make them re-apply using a long form?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

If you want anyone to read the Keyes lawsuit, you need to post the link to the text.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

BTW, has anyone checked Barack Obama's mothers passport records? They would definitively show where she was when he was born.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

No, in other words, you're unable to answer me.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else want to discuss (as in back and forth) the issue in a civil manner?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

In other words, you're unable to answer me.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338

Hawaiian statutes under 338 only go as far as 0051, not up to 178.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

What evidence is there that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 ever existed?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

In other words, you're unable to answer me.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

As I said, I will no longer answer your questions if you cannot return the same common courtesy. Have a nice life, Nosy_Parker.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Does Keyes provide citations to relevant caselaw?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

No proof, no credibility.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker: have you read the Keyes lawsuit?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

That's assuming Obama's mother and father were legally married. Also, I do not have a web link to Hawaiian law in effect 40 years ago (I don't think that Al Gore had invented the Internets by then ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
Please provide a link to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that you state was in effect at the time.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

From http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Even if Barack Obama WERE born abroad (of which there is no reasonable documentation, however), his history fulfills the above criteria.

Nothing in the above citation states, however (despite your claim), that "the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16."

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Quo Warranto had its origins in an attempt by King Edward I of England to investigate and recover royal lands, rights, and franchises in England, in particular those lost during the reign of his father, King Henry III of England. From 1278 to 1294, Edward dispatched justices throughout the Kingdom of England to inquire “by what warrant” English lords held their lands and exercised their jurisdictions (often the right to hold a court and collect its profits). Later, Quo Warranto functioned as a court order (or "writ") to show proof of authority; for example, demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office (literally, "By whose warrant are you the sheriff?").

In the United States today, Quo Warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or Constitution. The burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish his legal right to the office.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Who's "silent" now?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

No, Kili, the following questions have not been answered by you or anyone (let alone many times):

1) What "goalposts" did I move?

2) How "rational" is it to resort to personal attacks?

P.S. to Nosy_Parker: have you read the Keyes lawsuit?

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 at the time allowed for registration of birth in Hawaii of any child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. In addition, between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16.

READ: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

“Short-form by declaration” fraud is a plausible explanation that seems to fit the known facts. If Obama was born in Kenya, and if his mother simply traveled back to Hawaii with him shortly thereafter, and falsely declared his birth (including the newspaper announcements), then she alone broke the law, without the assistance of any co-conspirators. He may not even know the truth -- although I dount that -- the original LONG FORM vault record in Hawaii, if it exists, has not been examined, and Obama has refused to allow it to be examined. (The Government of Hawaii has stated that the “Certificate of Live Birth” (which appeared on Obama’s website) is valid, and it may be valid, if it was produced from short-form database records. However, if the short form records were fraudulently established by declaration, in the absence of a long-form witness of live birth, then a fraud has been perpetrated. You will need to answer my question before I answer any more of your questions. I think it's only fair and common courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, your questions have been answered many times in all of the forums you have posted your threads.

To tie this into the thread of this article, Professor Tribe had a point, but it's silly. The reason that President Obama redid the oath was because it cost nothing to do and killed a set of incessant, pointless questions from an obsessed group of people.

Posted by: Kili | January 23, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, all you have to do is cite the authority for thefacially-inplausible claim that the state of Hawaii issued birth certificates to babies born outside the state at the time in question.

And you are the plaintiff in this court of public opinion.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker:

I am not a plaintiff, and this is the court of public opinion. If you want specifics, start by reading the Keyes lawsuit. I am not going to post the entire complaint here.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Kili:

You won't answer my questions either. How "rational" is it to resort to personal attacks. I'm the first to admit if Obama is a "natural born" citizen, then he is President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Providing a legal copy of his birth certificate (regardless of when issued), which Obama has already done, is sufficient to fulfill his share of the burden in your hypothetical lawsuit. After that, the burden of proof switches back to the plaintiff (your side) to try to discredit the certificate by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. over 50% likelihood).

Where's the citation I asked you to provide to back up your claim that at the time of Obama's birth the state of Hawaii was (allegedly) issuing birth certificates to babies born outside the state? The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate whether that claim is true, yet I've seen nothing in the way of actual evidence.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 23, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

@thinman

He needed to take the oath. Article II says he does. That 12 noon thing is the 20th amendment and addresses when a term of office ends, not begins. He became president at 12:01 (by my possibly a minute off clock) on Tuesday when he was finished with the oath. THE FIRST OATH.

http://gridlockreigns.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-once-and-for-all-obama-has-been.html

Posted by: gridlockreigns | January 23, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

achilli:

Alan Keyes lawsuit out here in California is set for hearing in March.

Nosy_Parker:

Even I have to sleep. I am also golfing today. The burden of proof for quo warranto is on the elected official.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Goodness, the silence from JakeD's corner is deafening. Ya got nothing, do ya?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 22, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

One more thing, JakeD. Even assuming for the sake of argument that any court in the land would grant you standing to file a lawsuit re Obama's natural-born status (which the tossing of Philip J. Berg's suit last year suggests yours would be too), you'd be up against the old three-pronged test. The scenario would go something like this:

1. Plaintiff (you) claim Obama isn't natural-born.

2. Defendant (Obama) presents his legal Hawaiian birth certificate (the one you disbelieve).

3. Plaintiff (you again) try to disprove the validity of the birth certificate. Claiming that it's up to the defendant (Obama) to prove its validity is not allowed in court. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. What, you don't have any solid evidence that will stand up in court.

Case dismissed with prejudice.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 22, 2009 11:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD

Are there any records documenting Obama's mother's supposed travel to Kenya just before his birth, and to Hawaii immediately thereafter? Air lines would never have permitted a woman in the late stages of pregnancy to fly, nor right after giving birth. It would have been an arduous voyage back in 1961 too, probably by prop planes with numerous stops, plus overland travel upon arrival in Kenya. Ditto for ship travel. Plus, as modest as her financial means were back then, do you have any evidence of where she obtained the substantial amount of money necessary to purchase such a passage.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 22, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD

Cite the documentation for your implausible-sounding claim that Hawaii ever issued birth certificates for children not born there.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 22, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

There is also evidence by HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER (I can't even keep straight all of his half-brothers and sisters) that Obama was born in what is now Kenya.

As I explained to you the other day, the grandmother was asked this question through an interpreter, and she misunderstood the question when she replied. When she was asked again for clarification, she stated that Barack Obama was NOT born in Kenya.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 22, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

"There are still several legal arguments that Obama is NOT President."

And exactly where in the court system are those legal arguments right now, might I ask?

Any and all of those "several legal arguments" plus $4.50 will get you a grande latte at any Starbucks. You know it and I know it, so let's stop dicking around.

Posted by: achilli | January 22, 2009 9:31 PM | Report abuse

I have a question that I hope one of you can answer for me. Since the powers of Bush ended at 12:00 pm and Obama didn't take the official oath during the ceremony who then would have been in control in an emergency event or crisis before Obama took the second oath? Just a curious student with a question hope someone has an answer it would be appreciated.

Posted by: jm4980 | January 22, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

From the URL JakeD posted to as evidence of why he was surprised President Obama took the first oath with his hand on the Lincoln Bible:

"Part of the problem is that Obama has been raised in Protestant Christianity which is, without mincing words, an offshoot of true-Christian doctrine.. i.e. it is heretical. He is treating Christianity here as if it were a 'religion of the book' as Islam is for example and authentic Christianity certainly is not a 'religion of the book'. "

This is the kind of web site from which JakeD obtains the facts he quotes.

Play with him if it amuses you, but his mind is as closed as any can be. He is not rational.

Posted by: Kili | January 22, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question I'm waiting for a sharp reporter to research. How many chief justices read the oath off a card during the inauguration? I'm pretty sure I remember least one having the text in hand, presumably to prevent the flub committed by Roberts. A fast check of photos of past inaugurations would answer the question. And I'll bet Roberts has a cue card in hand in 2013!

Posted by: GaryBelis | January 22, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for this reporting. It answers, both very interestingly and informatively, questions that I raised earlier this morning at the Achenblog. Job well done.

Posted by: laloomis | January 22, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

'Jake D' is well-known to be former vp Cheney's online nom de plume.

Posted by: tiberius71 | January 22, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for this reporting. It answered, interestingly and informatively, questions I raised earlier this morning on the Achenblog. Job well done.

Posted by: laloomis | January 22, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"Besides, you've refused to answer my hypotehtical questions, so I will return the same courtesy to you.

Posted by: JakeD | "
-----
I did not ask you any hypothetical questions, but if you want we can have a "hypothetical question face-off" but it will be a big waste of time because they will not be based in fact, they will only be hypothetical.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"JRM2:

I was simply responding to your 7:44 PM (with more convincing proof IMLO).

Posted by: JakeD |"
-------
C'mon JakeD, you purport to be a lawyer and you're trying to tell me just because YOU say something it's convincing proof?

Everything I said about the 2000 election is true, however, what you are saying about Obama's grandmother has been shown to be false.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Besides, you've refused to answer my hypotehtical questions, so I will return the same courtesy to you.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:
Obama's got your long form hangin'

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

I was simply responding to your 7:44 PM (with more convincing proof IMLO).

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

If an IQ over 90 would have been a requirement for being President or holding public office, there wouldn't be a Republican party.

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | January 22, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"JRM2:

There is also evidence by HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER (I can't even keep straight all of his half-brothers and sisters) that Obama was born in what is now Kenya. The Constitution requires the President to be a "natural born" citizen, regardless of electoral or popular vote.

So, given those circumstances it is REASONABLE to have some suspicion about his legal qualifications for the job.

Posted by: JakeD |"
-----------
1. What has this got to do with your whine about libs complaining about Bush being appointed?
2. That so-called "evidence" about his grandmother has been debunked, pretty weak Jake

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

camera_eye_11:

There are still several legal arguments that Obama is NOT President.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the President! Thank God it's not a Republitard!

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | January 22, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

There is also evidence by HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER (I can't even keep straight all of his half-brothers and sisters) that Obama was born in what is now Kenya. The Constitution requires the President to be a "natural born" citizen, regardless of electoral or popular vote.

So, given those circumstances it is REASONABLE to have some suspicion about his legal qualifications for the job.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"Barack HUSSEIN Obama was not legally sworn in on January 20, 2009. Exactly as I predicted.

Posted by: JakeD"
------
I hate to admit it but old Jake "Nostradamus" D's prediction might have come true!

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

(Biden became Acting President, oath or not ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

"BTW: how long was it before you guys stopped complaining about Bush "stealing" the election(s)? Oh, that's right, you STILL haven't stopped.

Posted by: JakeD |"
------
That is because the recount was stopped with only 1000 ballots left to count by a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, his brother was the Governor of Florida and Kathleen what's-her-name who would certify the election was his campaign manager in Florida not to mention Gore actually winning more of the national popular vote.

So, given those circumstances it is REASONABLE to have some suspicion about the integrity of the election.

Even given that I was willing to give Bush a chance.

But now the main reason libs are still complaining is because the damage done to our country over the past 8 years has been so great it makes them feel like fools for ever giving a guy a chance who came into office under a cloud of suspicion.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama was not legally sworn in on January 20, 2009. Exactly as I predicted.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see JakeD still beating the "natural born" drum. I could have sworn that a few weeks ago Jake was confidently predicting that Obama would never be sworn in. Of course, per the Constitution, one does not even have to be sworn in. As reported by Fox News, Obama became President at 12 noon on 1/20, oath or not.

So what's it gonna be next JakeD?

Posted by: thinman1 | January 22, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

BTW: how long was it before you guys stopped complaining about Bush "stealing" the election(s)? Oh, that's right, you STILL haven't stopped.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

thingsthatshine:

Hopefully the Good Lord takes me home before that long.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I was actually surprised he took the oath on a Bible the first time he tried it:

http://godfearin.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-mocks-bible.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Settle in, JakeD. It's going to be a long eight years for you and the rest of the Obama-truthers. Stay crazy.

Posted by: thingsthatshine | January 22, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"More important, of course, is whether Obama is a "natural born" citizen.

Posted by: JakeD"

I wonder--is it animal abuse to beat a dead horse?

Posted by: BurgundyAndGold | January 22, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

More important, of course, is whether Obama is a "natural born" citizen.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company