If freepers say that Obama isn't sworn in.

[cooolandrew]

Considering their new spin is the second oath wasn't valid either. Just say fine it's president Biden then and Barack is an advisor with a lot of power whatever shuts them up.

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Yeah, and then if it isn't Biden it's Pelosi, their ultimate nightmare!

Remember how we were with the thought of Cheney? They act that way about Pelosi...

[salguine]

26. I think that way about Pelosi, too. She ought to be investigated along with the

rest of the previous administration to find out why she fought tooth and nail to avoid doing her constitutional duty.

[babylonsister]

2. Freepers can bite me. They sound brain dead at times. Who cares? nt

[NoQuarter]

16. You might want to rethink that.

Rabies, you know.

:rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

3. Why wasn't the 2nd one valid?

Because there was STILL a black man taking it?

[cooolandrew]

4. Just reading through they think it needs a bible but really it's probably a better oath without it.>

A atheistic ceromony another great first !! :)

[Clio the Leo]

7. ah .... because he didn't swear on a Bible....

.... you know because George Washington wrote with his own hand that the oath MUST be taken using a Bible and all (ha!)

Great ..... what time we doin' it tomorrow? :)

[Dennis Donovan]

8. Because the Bible wasn't used...

From your link:

To: Red Steel

During the re-administration of the Oath at 7:35 pm January 21, 2009, what was to be the official Constitutionally correct swearing in, a Bible was not used. Therefore, Barack Obama has yet to be Constitutionally sworn in as Commander in Chief.

13 posted on Thu 22 Jan 2009 02:12:30 PM GMT-8 by hercuroc
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies>

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

21. BWAAAAHAHAHA!

No way.

There is NO constitutional requirement for a Bible. In fact, the Congress doesn't swear in on a Bible.

[Clio the Leo]

10. nah, nothing wrong with the Bible.....

.... and I'm sorry that you think that the only Christians are THESE idiots.

Some of us are sane, rational human beings who use logic when thinking. ;)

[Raine]

17. He didn't use the bible but he

still said "so help me God".

[The Wizard]

22. What if he said

So help me Zeus.

[leftynyc]

29. What monumental uninfomred morons they are

At least two presidents were sworn in on the constitution which they should all do since they are swearing to defend it. I'd like to hear their idiotic reasons for being okay with "so help me G-d" being added to the oath. That's not in the constitution.

[kenny blankenship]

13. It's kind of complicated to explain but really it only lacked a pinch of salt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4883399&mesg_id=4883996

Oops..salt AND the ruby slippers. I forgot the ruby slippers. See how easy it is to forget how Inauguration Spellbinding works? Any one part of it missing or performed in the wrong order and you can't legally call yourself the President.

Anybody know when the next do-over is going to be?

[treestar]

27. Bingo. Freepers will come up with any excuse they can

Obama could be sworn in anew every single morning and they'd still find something.

[Kalyke]

31. No - it's because he's still a "Muslin".

:rofl:

[backscatter712]

5. Heh, sort of like the relationship between Bush and Cheney.

President Biden and Obama as the power behind the throne... ;)

Seriously, the oathers are about as credible as the birthers - Obama did take the oath, and even if he didn't, he'd still be President, thanks to the 20th Amendment.

[sandnsea]

6. It's time to put away childish things. n/t

[StClone]

9. Smart Freeper do you ever wonder why

You hang around with the childish, little-minded know nothings that get sidetracked into the wastelands of invented reality?

Can you just tell your lessers that it's time to grow up and face things and move on to discuss more important things like saving their assets, livelihoods and lives from what appears to be a very rough stretch ahead.

Maybe Freeperville can fore go the useless (dangerous) political chitchat and start posts on gardening, canning and recycling to survive in case things get ugly. Hey you are not immune from what may be the Great Republican Depression II.

[EFerrari]

11. And to think that these people probably drive and operate

small appliances in their kitchens and borrow power tools.

[gauguin57]

12. Not only that ... the Freepers keep saying the flubbed oath was all Obama's fault.

... Rather than that it was the fault of that FUCKING GENIUS ROBERTS -- who organized the protest thugs of FL Recount 2000 and who helped put the selected CHIMP into the White House and was given a justiceship because of his service in getting an illegitimate president into the Oval Office.

Get a grip, Freepers. Watch the instant replay. Roberts, allegedly an expert in the Constitution (HA!) couldn't find his ass with both hands yesterday.

[AJH032]

14. Oaths are ceremonial

and not a necessary part of starting in an office.

[sofa king]

15. In this case, it might be pretty important.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that the President must take the oath "before he enter the Execution of his Office."

The 20th Amendment, however, doesn't mention the oath and instead suggests that the transition is automatic at 12:00 pm on January 20.

Both things can be operative at the same time, however: the new President's term of office can begin at 12:00, but the President's executive powers may be held in theoretical suspension until the oath is taken.

That's why I embarrassed myself by yelling at Katie Couric's voice in a crowded theater the other day, when she inanely observed that Joe Biden was Acting President for the duration of the John Williams tune between the two swearing in ceremonies. Whatever other minor questions have been raised, that was not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

The oath has been screwed up in the past with little comment and no actual repercussions. But as usual the freeptards' gnawed fingernails can't draw blood where there isn't already a scab. President Obama hit the ground running and appears to have done a considerable amount of work in between Roberts' first attempt to administer the oath and his second attempt the next day. One might be able to argue that the executive acts of the President in between those times are technically invalid.

Of course, there are some simple remedies for that. The President can reprint the documents with a newer date and sign them again. He can probably avoid that by simply issuing a blanket statement saying he still approves of everything he did that day.

Or, he can sit back and laugh as a thousand Republican lawyers scrape up their next car payments by toiling over the issue for a couple of years, only to have the final decision return to the guy who screwed it up in the first place (Chief Justice Roberts).

This issue is hardly as serious as the blatant Constitutional violation of putting two candidates from the same state on the ticket, which George Bush and Dick Cheney did with impunity. But on the other hand, that issue was not pursued because the people on the other side of it were thoughtful, logical and mature about it. We cannot expect the same of the new opposition.

[Life Long Dem]

18. I think it's more of a laugh at freepers trying to pin something on Obama

And this one is a big misstep in swearing in Obama. No match for "no wmd's in Iraq"... but the freepers only have so much to work with when it comes to Obama. And this was not even Obama's fault! :rofl:

[Optical.Catalyst]

19. Where was the freeper outrage when Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court with out being elected?

If freepers want to talk about taking office illegally, go back to November 2000 and start there.

[WeDidIt]

20. What reason are they giving for the second oath being invalid?

Seriously, how can the second oath be invalid?

[paparush]

23. Apparently, Obama did not have his hand on a Bible (tm)

[WeDidIt]

34. So, uh, did anybody ask where in the consittution a Bible is required for tha oath?

:shrug:

[paparush]

35. Freepers do not think in such subtle ways...

[cherish44]

24. The second I saw the pic of the second oath I knew Freepers would have a tantrum over it

Of course I'm also waiting for the Freeper camp that says that every executive order Obama gave before the second oath is now invalid because he wasn't really president when he gave them....

[vaberella]

25. This shit makes me sick. This is some serious shit to keep him out.

Damn you Andrea Mitchell.

[endarkenment]

28. why do we care what they think?

[oviedodem]

30. Here is a gem from freep world.

To: PilotDave
Under Anglo-Saxon law, someone who hesitated or misspoke when taking an oath was assumed to be perjuring himself. God would not allow a false oath to be taken.

If you take that point of view, Roberts misspoke because the Supreme Court failed in its duty to require Obama to produce a birth certificate. And Obama misspoke because he was ineligible for the office.

[Patsy Stone]

33. Wow. Anglo-Saxon law?

Did we just elect Ethelred?

This is a delicious Mobius strip of logic, right here.

[Patsy Stone]

32. To soothe them, why don't we see if Roberts

can get the SCOTUS to appoint Obama in a 5-4 vote? That would make him legitimate in their eyes, right? :eyes: