Debate:Was it legally necessary for Obama to retake the Oath of Office?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

When President Obama took the Oath of Office upon entering office on January 21, 2009, Chief Justice Roberts, when administering the oath, misspoke. This caused confusion, with Obama also misspeaking. As a result, Obama did not recite the oath correctly during the Inauguration Ceremony. The following day, "out of an abundance of caution", Roberts administered, and Obama took, the oath correctly. Was it necessary for them to retake the oath? - JamesCA 10:54, 28 June 2012 (EDT)



Probably not. Certainly the intent to take the oath was there. For example, suppose a President takes the oath, but mispronounces a word. Would he have to repeat the whole thing? Article 2 Section 1 clause 8 says:

Before he enter 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."

Suppose a President mangles the oath and then some lawsuit challenges his official actions, claiming that he is not really President. If it went to trial (which is unlikely), he would be called as a witness and asked, "Did you intend to take the oath stated in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution?" His answer is "Yes." That would be the end of the lawsuit. Wschact 20:16, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

But why not just take it again and avoid the lawsuit in the first place? That's why he did it out of caution. Gregkochuconn 20:56, 7 July 2012 (EDT)