Here we go… more and more people are calling for a “do over” with the Presidential Oath. After looking into it, I have become convinced that it’s no big deal. Go ahead! Take the oath a second time; previous Presidents Coolidge and Arthur did.

RTFA: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2…

In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word “faithfully,” at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

A do-over “would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it’s not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe,” said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. “It’s an open question whether he’s president until he takes the proper oath.”

The courts would probably never hear a challenge, and some might argue that Obama automatically took office at noon because that’s when President Bush left the office. But because the procedure is so explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Beermann said if he were Obama’s lawyer, he would recommend retaking it, just as two previous presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, did under similar circumstances.

“The Constitution says what he’s supposed to say,” Beermann said. “… It’s kind of surprising the chief justice couldn’t get it right.”

From Wikipedia for Calvin Coolidge:

On August 2, 1923, President Harding died while on a speaking tour in California. Vice-President Coolidge was visiting his family home, which did not have electricity or a telephone, in Vermont when he received word by messenger of Harding’s death. Coolidge dressed, said a prayer, and came downstairs to greet the reporters who had assembled. His father, a notary public, administered the oath of office in the family’s parlor by the light of a kerosene lamp at 2:47 a.m. on August 3, 1923; Coolidge then went back to bed. Coolidge returned to Washington the next day, and was re-sworn by Justice A. A. Hoehling of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, as there was some confusion over whether a state notary public had the authority to administer the presidential oath.

Also, from Chester A. Arthur’s entry:

President Arthur took the oath of office twice. The first time was just past midnight at his Lexington Avenue residence on September 20 by New York Supreme Court justice John R. Brady; the second time was upon his return to Washington two days later.

It appears that there is precedent for the following:
1) taking the oath more than once
2) performing the oath for a private audience

On this basis, there is no downside for Obama to take the oath a second time. John Roberts, on the other hand, will forever be remembered as “that guy” who became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court without memorizing the constitution. Of course, that’s basically a joke: Roberts obviously knows the US Constitution, and there’s almost no chance he’s unaware of Coolidge’s and Arthur’s re-swearing of the Oath of Office.

Is it even conceivable that Roberts was attempting to have Obama swear a similar, but inaccurate, oath as a precedent for some later action? In this scenario, Roberts, knowing full well that previous presidents have re-sworn the oath to avoid some catastrophic technicality, would also be aware that Obama could trivially reswear the oath, but in this scenario, Obama didn’t do so. An open question: what could this kind of “set up” be building towards?

  • Sidarth Kumar
  • Avon, Esq.
    I think the Coolidge and Arthur precedents were different - and, arguably, more necessary than Obama's re-swearing. Coolidge was sworn in by a notary public, who was not only a blood relative (which disqualifies notaries from serving in many or most states) but also a State, not Federal, office holder. Likewise, although Arthur was sworn in the first time by a chief judge, it was the New York State chief judge and not a Federal official of any kind. To be sworn into Federal service, I'd think you'd need a Federal official to preside.
    LBJ was - quite famously - sworn in fairly privately too ... aboard a jet at cruising altitude, no less ... but nobody doubted the legality of that. I don't think the public setting matters one bit.
  • Mark
    "Is it even conceivable that Roberts was attempting to have Obama swear a similar, but inaccurate, oath as a precedent for some later action?"

    No. There's no way a court would declare Obama "not really president" on the basis of a trivial verbal flub like this. Any court that did something so outrageous would incur enough wrath that impeaching the judges would be a real possibility. Roberts simply goofed. Obama noticed but politely declined to interrupt the ceremony over it, and they fixed it afterward. Nothing to see here.
  • farkinga
    ...that was my initial take on the situation, but on that basis, why bother to take the oath a second time? Initially, it seemed to me that the 20th amendment was adequate for handling the presidential hand-off from Bush to Obama, but as time went on, it seemed like more and more people were uncomfortable with Roberts' wording.

    It's clearly a moot point, since the oath has been sworn, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume it was not simply that Roberts goofed. On that basis, what could have precipitated from the mix-up? ...anything? ...if only to set the precedent that the oath had less meaning for future presidents?
  • Eric
    Guess we'll never know, as he re-took the oath today. Maybe he'll get to "do over" his 4-year term beginning in 2013!
blog comments powered by Disqus