It doesn't change the intent of the oath--he's still supposed to do his job "faithfully"--which I take to mean, according to the Rule of Law and according to the Constitution. Which compared to that last guy we had...:) I don't think it's sufficient to invalidate the oath if the words are out of order: I understand there's a law that made him President high noon EST 1/20/09 come hell or highwater, oath or no.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
