Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Jan 22, 2009.
By Ed Henry
CNN Senior White House Correspondent
oh my gorsh! me didnae use a BIBLE!
He's a muslin!
This became a big issue today at the press briefing.
I am already tired of the phrase "An abundance of caution."
Ah, this must be the crisis that another thread eluded to. This was not a ceremony, this was just making sure that things are right. I think the media is taking this way to far. This same thing has happened in the past with 2 other presidents Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur. They just wanted to make sure that everything is legit.
This is not as huge of a deal as the media would like everyone to believe. And yes he was constitutionally President when he took the oath the first time. It was just lawyers doing a CYA.
Well, at least he was legally elected...
Well he was constitutionally President before he took the oath. At 12 noon that day he was President. The oath is unnecessary ceremony.
Actually the oath is Constitutionally necessary. It says the President has took take the oath. The noon thing is to ensure that the country does not run without one of the branches in tact. The President still has to take the oath of office.
this news is sooooo yesterday lol
The oath is where a president swears to uphold the law, so it is necessary.
First Justice Roberts screws up, then there's no Bible involved. Let's hope they don't make him retake the oath over and over again for his first year in office, because obviously, the oath is the most important part of the presidency and must be executed without flaw.
Correct, however, there is no where in the constitution that states a bible or any other object has to be involved.
I would say that it's more important to have a president who actually does uphold the law...
Such an ugly, ugly word. *shudder*
What was wrong with saying: "Obama sworn in for second time."
Haha, I should've used a smiley face. Personally, I think it's rather irrelevant. The first time was good enough.
As calculus said, it's more important that they actually uphold (or improve, then uphold) the law
Well, I am wrong. Thank you for correcting me. Although, he did have the option between an oath and an affirmation, right?
That's the title of his next book...
Yes, but the oath is saying the words the affirmation is saying "yes" to the same words. So in my opinion, kinda the same thing. Same words are spoken either way.
Don't worry. I'm sure 'prudence' is just around the corner. She hasn't been let out to play a lot recently by Gordon Brown.
maybe he just wanted to do it again, just for fun.
he should have been just fine with the first oath. but i understand wanting to cover your *** given the way politics can be played.
is this a big deal? not nearly as much as the media would like you to think.
Fixed. Leave it to Fox to bring up the "He might not actually be the President, this could go to court." line.
If a Republican did it, the news would be all over it, although I m glad that the news isn't making a big deal out of it.
You should have watched CNN's coverage of the press conference this morning. You might not be saying that the news isn't making a big deal out of it. Watching the reporters in that room you would have thought that this is the crisis of the century.