Talk:Oath of office of the president of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge with Oath of office

These pages repeat each other; I think the United States section of Oath of office should be merged with President of the United States oath of office. Philip Stevens 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, BUT!, I think that President of the United States oath of office should become a redirect to oath of office. (I have put a copy of this discussion on the other page) 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

John Tyler

What evidence is there that John Tyler affirmed? Hoover was a Quaker and so affirmed. A fair bit of evidence that Pierce also affirmed but I can't find anything that states Tyler affirmed that I would trust. --Erp 02:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can somebody put the difference between affirming the oath and swearing it, i.e., why it matters, if at all? I don't know it, but I'd like to see it.

Legally, swearing and affirming are equivalent, but the difference is a matter of sensitivity to religious diversity. Some Christian traditions hold the admonition of Jesus to simply "let your yea be yea" forbids swearing oaths. The Founders did not want this requirement for office to be a religious test. It's common in U.S. law to allow an "or affirm" option. Jonathunder 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Note also that you are not 'affirming the oath'. There is a choice between 'oath' which requires swearing and 'affirmation' for which one simply affirms.--Erp 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

How about a picture of a real ceremonial swearing in? The one of LBJ can be there, but how about FDR's, or JFK's, or Ronald Reagan's? Happyme22 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Assertion that presidents did not use "So Help Me God"

Check out this article which references an 1894 book called Christ the King by Reverend James Mitchell Foster which claims that presidents after Washington and before Rutherford B. Hayes did not use "So Help Me God." It specifically mentions Lincoln.--Larrybob (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to expand on the debate of whether or not Washington said "So help me God" then fine. But do not delete the sources that say he did. Also, remember that federal law as early as 1789 (the very year Washington took his oath) required all executive officers and federal judges to insert "So help me God" as a part of their oaths. Ironic that the first laws of the United States (which Washington signed into law) would require everyone to say "So help me God" when it was not being used by the President himself (supposedly). So write about your theories all you want, but do not delete Congressional records or laws that state a recorded fact. The fact may be wrong, but it is a source. State your sources and let the reader discern the truth.Todd Gallagher (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete any references - in fact, I repaired a reference existing in the article which went to a dead link, linking instead to an archive.org version of the item. You removed two whole paragraphs with references which I added. --Larrybob (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Irving as eyewitness

The book "The Republican Court: Or, American Society in the Days of Washington" by Griswold is available scanned from Google books [1]. On page 142, the author says that Washington Irving related to him and Dr. Francis his recollections of George Washington's first inaugural in 1789. The book does disagree slightly with the Senate.gov Inaugural history site, which gives the date as April 30th; the book lists it as April 13th. Anyway, Irving's birthdate was April 3, 1783, making him six years old at the time of the first President's inauguration. I don't dispute that he was living in New York, the city of Washington's inauguration, but this second-hand account based on the witnessing of a child might be less than accurate. Irving's biography of Washington [2] ends before the inauguration and does not include an account of it.--Larrybob (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we put "is thought to have recalled" before every piece of testimony?

I don't think so. I dissent from Ray Soller's change of "only one apparent eyewitness recollected Washington's use of 'so help me God'" to "only one reported eyewitness is thought to have recalled..."

There is no "thinking to" involved. Irving definitely recollected that Washington said "so help me God." Whether his recollection was accurate is what's at issue, not whether he recollected it. If Soller wants to attack Irving's recollection, he is free to make a case, but there is no question that Irving reported his recollection first to Griswold, and then in his own hand. Is Soller claiming that we are not really sure that Washington Irving actually was the one who wrote Irvings history of GW? Is Soller claiming that Griswold lied when he said that Irving reported the event to him?

I don't think that wiki is the place for an ideological bias to be represented. Soller clearly is a well-known advocate of Newdow and has an axe to grind here. The facts should be stated, referenced, and left to the readers to assess. The highly loaded "is thought to have recalled" implies a bias against Irving.

Soller has also posted a good deal of erroneous material in this same regard all over the internet. For example, he claimed that the fact that G.Washington kissed the bible is only corroborated "by a single unidentifiable report" when in reality, this claim is corroborated by a multitude of eyewitnesses (1. Samuel Otis, the secretary of Congress... THE PERSON HOLDING THE BIBLE WHEN WASHINGTON KISSED IT!!! See the Journal of the Secretary of Congress; 2. Eliza Morton Quincy, an eyewitness; 3. William Duer, an eyewitness; 4. A report in the Gazette of the U.S., May 8, 1789; 5. Washington Irving, an eyewitness).

Soller has also claimed repeatedly that Chester A. Arthur is the first president to say "so help me God" at his inaugural oath, when in fact a contemporaneous news account proves that Lincoln said the words in 1865. I suggest that there is good reason, therefore, for all concerned to be very suspicious of all of Soller's contributions to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.33.117 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes, when Griswold & Irving are concerned

Anyone, including "Unsigned," can e-mail me directly at rxs@alum.mit.edu for additinal information, or for reputable character references on my behalf. This is not the place to get into a personal debate. I will state the facts:

Why should anyone accept your "facts"?

Isn't this a bit hypocritical on your part? You consider it fully appropriate to undermine Irving's veracity by trying to suggest that there are other instances in which he demonstrated he was not trustworthy; but can't the same exact logic be applied to you?? Isn't it true that you went on record claiming that the rumor that George Washington kissed the bible is only the product of "a single unidentifiable report"? To wit, you made that claim here.

And yet isn't the truth that you were simply dead wrong about that? Isn't it the truth that this "rumor" is confirmed by a multitude of named eyewitnesses? You take the following approach with Washington Irving: ... since he has a history of mistating facts (you claim), then he can't be trusted on the whole. Shouldn't this same logic apply to you?

And haven't you gone on record claiming that Chester A. Arthur was the first president for whom there is contemporaneous evidence that he said "so help me God" when inaugurated?? To wit, you made that claim here. The Sacramento Daily Union, who had a reporter at Lincoln's Inauguration, immediately reported the phrase "so help me God" was said there. Wasn't Lincoln president before Chester A. Arthur? Or are you going to make some kind of attack on a contemporaneous news report (which, if cogent, would undermine almost all 19th century American history)?

Since you've been proven dead wrong twice on this very topic, why should you be taken seriously at all at this point, especially when your argument about Irving is based on the idea that when a person is proven erroneous on accounts x & y, he shouldn't be trusted on account z?

Washington Irving, according to Griswold, was one block away from the balcony of Federal Hall. This location was not even along the parade route. A six year old "eyewitness" can't always hear what is said, but he is supposed to see what is happening. When Irving in his biography of Washington described the number of horses that pulled Washington's carriage he got it wrong. Irving said there were two horses, while the New York Packet said there were four.

It seems that you do trust contemporaneous news accounts after all!

That was the only carriage with four horses. It helped identify the Carriage of State as the carriage in which Washington was riding. What is most damaging of all to Irving's reliablilty as an "eyewitness" is that Irving, for the most part, plagiarized his description of the inaugural ceremony from the memoirs of Eliza Susan Morton Quincy, age 16 at the time.

I don't think you have a clue of how 19th century historians did their work. By your standard, Bancroft was the worst of them all.

(Her brother is said to have retrieved the Masonic Bible for Washington's swearing-in.) The basic problem with the Griswold-Irving "I swear -- So help me God" version of the oath is that it does not agree with the firsthand account found in the French consul's, Comte de Moustier, dispatch of June 5, 1789:

No, Irving and Moustier do not Disagree

Where does Irving disagree with Moustier?? You can't take silence about x as an affirmation that x did not happen. Notice that Moustier also does not say that Washington kissed the bible... but several others, including the person holding the bible, said it happened? Does that mean that Moustier was a liar? No. It simply means that he didn't include it in his report. You are taking Moustier's report and claiming "if it's not there, it didn't happen." That's just demonstrably false. It's a bogus way of reasoning.

<retranslated from the French>

"The day of 30th April 1789 is remarkable for the solemn and the most imposing ceremony that has so far taken place in the United States. . . ."

"After every one had taken his seat, the Vice-President rose to announce to the President that the members of both Houses were ready to escort him to witness the oath he was going to take in conformity with the Constitution. A balcony adjoined the Senate-chamber, permitting all classes of people to witness the ceremony in greater number. Three doors communicating with this balcony were opened. The President passed by the middle one, followed by the Vice-President and the Chancellor of the State of New York, who was to administer the oath. The Senators went out by the right, and the Representatives by the left. On an embroidered cushion a Bible was brought, upon which the President placed his hand and repeated the following words after the Chancellor: 'I solemnly swear to discharge with fidelity the functions of President of the United States, and to do all in my power to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.' Thereupon the Chancellor, making a sign with his hat to the people, exclaimed, 'Long live George Washington, President of the United States!' Three hurrahs, the customary acclamation of the people, followed; the President saluted the public profoundly, and re-entered with the Senators and the Representatives."

See "Documentary History of the First Federal Congress," Vol. 15, pages 404-405

--raySoller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.219.34 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Griswold is not trustworthy

There were many eyewitnesses, yet unlike the case with kissing the bible, they don't claim that GW appended shmG. The GW biographies by Griswold and Irving were written over 60 years after the event. Washington Irving is not known to have self-identified himself as an eyewitness despite writing a biography of GW.

• Washington Irving was a historian. His biography of Washington has stood up to serious scrutiny. In the preface to his Biography of GW, Irving states, “I have endeavored to execute my task with candor and fidelity; stating facts on what appeared to be good authority, and avoiding as much as possible all false coloring and exaggeration.” Professor Andrew Burstein of University of Tulsa, an expert on Washington Irving, stated that Irving's bio of GW was the product of solid research. It cannot be likened to the mythology of Parson Weems. In the conclusion of the bio, Irving states again that he did not embellish anything, but let the facts speak for themselves. Dr. Church writes, "Irving’s biography is free of the pious cant that compromises certain other early treatments of Washington’s life, and he certainly had no religious ax to grind, being himself a thoroughgoing secularist."

• You have every right to question and doubt the veracity of Irving's account. What you cannot do is erase it or claim that it doesn't exist. It does exist. If you are going to claim that Irving concocted the "so help me God" story, the burden is on you to provide a motive and to show a pattern in the GW bio of similar license with the facts. I haven't seen you do that at all.

Griswold is not a trustworthy primary source. Griswold claims to know that George Washington recited the shmG phrase "with eyes closed".

• I don't think Griswold ever claimed to be an eyewitness. His veracity one way or the other is of little consequence.

How he could know that based only on Washington Irving's self-recollection of what he saw as a 6 year old from 200 feet away?

• Pray-tell, what is self-recollection? is this not a redundancy? Is there such thing as other-recollection rather than self-recollection? And why do you insist that Irving's story is based entirely upon his own recollection? Isn't it possible that Dr. Church may be accurate when he says that Irving, "In doing research for his biography or in shared reminiscence over the years, he likely tested his memories against those of other eyewitnesses"?

• I remember a lot of things that happened when I was six. There was the moon landing, for example. I remember watching it. But the reason I have been forced to remember the words that were said at that moment were because I have heard that experience rehearsed several times since then. Isn't it altogether probable that the inauguration of Washington was a similar sort of event in the early life of Washington Irving?

Irving's nephew's long biography of his uncle The Life and Letters of Washington Irving, Pierre Monroe Irving, 1869, G.P. Putnam's sons, didn't mention him viewing the first presidential inauguration, even briefly, although it did describe Irving's personal encounter with Washington as a young boy. Irving had discussed his biography project with his nephew since the 1840s, and Pierre was assisting his uncle with writing it in the mid-1850s. So if Irving was telling reliable stories of witnessing the inauguration, Pierre would certainly have been privy to them and presumably have recognized their importance to his project. The apparent absence of any confirmation outside Griswold that Irving witnessed the first presidential inauguration thus leaves additional room for doubt that Irving really was an eyewitness.

• Have you heard of the fallacy called "argumentum ad ignorantiam"?

Griswold has a reputation as a slanderer for his character assassination of Edgar Allen Poe in his inaccurate “Memoir of the Author” which appears in the third volume of Griswold’s collected Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe, published Sept. 21, 1850. Griswold claimed himself to be the executor of Poe’s literary estate (Poe's sister Rosalie actually had the legal right to his estate). As such, "he forged letters by Poe and made changes in the texts of Poe's work to support his lies, portraying Poe as a fiend and a drug addict." —Preceding unsigned comment added by NAProject (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No identified comtemporenous eyewiteness account

Washington Irving was a lawyer and author, he did not get a university degree in history and he didn't write history books for acadamia, he wrote books that he hoped would be popular with the general public for profit. Washington Irving never claimed that he heard GW append so help me God and he never identified another eyewitness for this claim. So the bottom line is that we have no contemporenuous eyewitness account because neither Washington Irving nor Griswold identify one. Washington Irving relied on the manuscripts in the Department of State but doesn't cite any of the manuscripts to back this particular claim. He relied on Mr. Sparks "Washington's Writings" biography but that biography doesn't make this particular claim.

We all agree that Washington Irving claimed GW appended that phrase. However, there is a difference between asserting that Washington Irving claimed GW appended that phrase and asserting that GW appended that phrase. For the later claim it is insufficient by any reasonable standard that all we have is that someone first asserts that GW appended that phrase 65 years after the fact when we have no corrobating evidence from any identified eyewitness, just the same single source who is then quoted by multiple people 65 years after the fact and who himself didn't identify who heard that phrase being said. Dr. Church's speculation that Washington Irving was the first George Washington biographer to discover that George Washington appended that phrase from some unidentified eyewitness 65 years after the fact is 100% pure speculation that does nothing to raise Washington Irving's unsourced claim to historical fact. We need names of contemporaneous eyewitnesses and we have none.

Griswold's reliability is an issue if he is being cited to support the claim that six year old Washington Irving was himself an eyewitness. But even if Washington Irving was where Griswold said he was during the inauguration that is still insufficient to establish that Washington Irving provides an eyewitness account that George Washington appended shmG. Again, without any identified contemporaneous eyewitness, the claim that George Washington appended shmG is not history. Its a uncorroborated claim that first surfaces 65 years later after most of the eyewiteness, none of whom are known to have claimed GW appended that phrase, are dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NAProject (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The X, Y, Z Affair

No one needs to trust any single explication on this matter as to whether GW added SHMG to his presidential oath. Even so, the following material is presented to show how reputable historians are currently treating this issue.

According to Philander D Chase, now Senior Editor of "The Papers of George Washington," he relied on the judgment of Dorothy Twohig, one of the founding editors. He reported in an e-mail that "One of her principal dictums was that if you cannot prove something, leave it out. She [prior to 1987] edited the early volumes in our Presidential Series, and in writing notes about the 1789 inauguration in volume 2 of that series (pp. 152-58) [University Press of Virginia, 1987], she left out SHMG [So help me God] because she could not document it. (Would that other historians be as careful in such things)."

The Washington Post reporter Phil McCombs, prior to writing his article, "Riding on the Metroliner" of January 20, 2001, conducted a telephone interview with Phillander D Chase, Senior Editor of The Papers of George Washington deposited at the University. The reporter, Phil McCombs, quoted Phil Chase as saying, "Whether Washington actually added 'So help me God' to the oath is not supported by any eyewitness account. He may have said those words [but we don't know]." Subsequent exchanges with Philander Chase show that he is now more skeptical.

Nearly four years later, Charlene B. Bickford, Director of the First Federal Congress Project, George Washington University, confirmed Phil Chase'a assessment, when she sent a reply e-mail to Michael Newdow that appears in Appendix G of the legal brief "Newdow v. Bush (See www.restorethepledge.com, select Past Litigation, select The Bush Inaugural Prayer Lawsuit #1 (2005), select entry EXHIBIT B - H, 2005-01-16 under U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to locate the specified e-mail) [text inserted within brackets are mine & appear for the sake of clarity and completeness]

APPENDIX G

E-MAIL FROM CHARLENE BICKFORD
Director, First Federal Congress Project

Subj: Re: God and First Congress
Date: 11/29/04 12:47:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Charlene Bickford
To: Michael Newdow

Dear Mike,

Interestingly this issue of oaths has come up in another context recently. The [Education] director of the White House Historical Society [Charles P. Riley] asked what was the source for the "fact" that Washington added "So help me God" to the end of the Constitutionally required oath at his inauguration. After much back and forth with the editors of the "Papers of George Washington" [namely, Senior Editor Philander D. Chase, University of Virginia] and research in the sources [Documentary History of the First Federal Congress, George Washington University] that we have here, we were unable to locate any contemporary account [among the many eyewitness & newspaper accounts] that reported that he said those words. In fact, the only contemporary account that repeats the oath, a letter of the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath [See "Documentary History of the First Federal Congress," Vol. 15, pages 404-405]. We now believe that Washington consciously (he rarely did something that wasn't very calculated) repeated only the prescribed oath with no reference to God to show strict adherence to the Constitution. The first report [written 65 years later, "The Republican Court: or American Society in the Days of Washington," pg. 141, Rufus W. Griswold, 1854] that we have located that says he concluded with "So help me God" is secondhand from someone [Washington Irving, "The Life of George Washington," vol. iv, 1958] who would have been about eight years old [actually six years old] when he attended the inauguration.
[end of e-mail]

More recently, on February 6, 2007 during a National Constitution Center event, Washington: Devout or Deist, with speakers Peter Lillback, Jana Novak, Peter Henriques [author of "Realististic Visionary - A Portait of George Washington"], and moderator John DiIulio that occurred in Philadelphia, there was a discussion - a snippet of which follows. (The audio can be found at http://feeds.feedburner.com/NCCPrograms.)

Peter Henriques: There is a tradition that most all of us probably think is accurate that Washington said "So help me God" at the end of his First Inauguration, and set a precedent.

If you look at the evidence, and I don't want to take [more than] a short time, but the evidence for that is surprisingly weak. It's a case where people accept something, pass it on, but the actual evidence for it is not [there], and Washington is strict constructionist. He is not going to change the constitutional oath, at least, not without anyone mentioning it. Indeed the French Ambassador, who was there, and wrote down what he said, and wrote the oath, did not put it in.

The Senate, four days after Washington's Inauguration, passed an oath for Congressmen that specifically took out the words "So help me God" [from the oath originally taken by the House members]. I can't imagine they would have taken that out of the oath if George Washington had done it, at least without any comment.

The first time this is mentioned is fifty years after Washington is in his grave. I mention that because there is a lot of oral history stories about Washington that are appealing and attractive, but not in all cases accurate.
[end of Henriques snippet]

Raysoller (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

End the Washington POV push/counterpush

End the POV battle both in the article and here on talk. It seems clear to me that there is no particularly strong evidence either way on Washington. We should simply make it clear that it is unclear, full stop. I included the French Dispatch as the best report at the time of the event (absence of mention is obviously not mention of absence, but it is the best report we have of the event), and I cited Irving's report which is apparently the primary source for the "So help me God" report. Neither is particularly solid evidence. I don't think the article can productively say much beyond that. Alsee (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do not presume to understand the historical method (or basic English) if you clearly do not. There is much more to history than just the use of primary sources. Additionally, it is actually not correct to call the Comte's June "dispatch" contemporaneous to a MARCH event. You have also failed to provide a proper citation to the Comte's "dispatch." Please rectify that error. Most importantly, to dismiss Freeman and Medhurst's expertise on this matter is pedestrian at best. The edits made in this regard diminish the scholarly nature of this article. And please, when you make your reckless edits, remember that Washington is not spelled "Washinton" and inauguration is not spelled "inaguration." I'm not sure if those are typos on your part or if you are just truly a buffoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.11.207 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So help me God was not and is not required for federal "executive officers" or judges.

An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which specified the oath for Congress and for the executive branch, excluding the President, was the first law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1789 after the ratification of the constitution. It has no "so help me God".

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established an additional oath taken by Supreme Court justices and district court judges only. That oath ended with "so help me God." However, the act then says "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."

In 1862 "so help me God", was first appended to the non-judicial and non-presidential civilian federal oath.

Today, both federal civilian and military personnel and new citizens who do not want to append 'so help me God' to their Oath of Office or Oath of Citizenship may take the oath without that phrase. The Supreme Court held in Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 that federal and state governments cannot condition employment on taking oaths that infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held (EEOC # 01890285 dated April 2, 1990) that even though an Oath is required by statute, it must be modified as necessary to accommodate an individual’s religious rights. Also, White House Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace, August 19, 1997, state that "where an agency’s work rule imposes a substantial burden on a particular employee’s exercise of religion, the agency…should grant the employee an exemption from that rule, unless the agency has a compelling interest in denying the exemption and there is no less restrictive means of furthering the interest."

Anything that Todd gallagher (or anyone else) repeatedly puts in this article that says or implies otherwise (such as the false assertion in this article first placed here by Todd gallagher in August 2007 that "so help me god" was required in 1789 and is "required" today in all federal executive officer oaths) should be corrected or deleted.

NAProject (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am proud we have a person who knows how to read here. There is a difference between reality and regulation, as well as codified law and case law. The law is clear that OATHS require "So help me God"; AFFIRMATIONS do not. So no one is saying that anyone has to say "So help me God," but it is in the oath, just not in the affirmation. We have had president use "affirm" and not at the same time not use the phrase "So help me God." When I had to take mine, I used "affirm" and not "swear." So that is not in dispute. The question is what does the law say. If you would like to amend the article to clarify what most people can clearly read that the oath is optional, then fine. If you would like to clarify that case law differs from the statute then that too is fine. But the law is the law, and that is what we are discussing. I could clearly say that several states ban specific acts, but that these laws are nonenforceable because of case law or because of administrative policy that contradicts the law. That still doe snot change the fact.Todd Gallagher (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are still talking about the presidential oath, the words of the constitution pre-empt any regulation or statute. Yes, it is an anomaly, but the words are there, and remain in the absense of an amendment to the contrary. And there is no precedent that tradition can invalidate the prescriptions in the constitution to the best of my knowledge.Arodb (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Becomes President when?

This article suggests, a President-elect or a Vice President (upon a President's death, resignation or removal from office), can't become President until taking the oath. If that's the case, every 4 years for about 15-30 minutes, the US Presidency is vacant (President-elects & re-elects don't take their oath at EXACTLY Noon EST [when the term begins], but rather minutes later). Furthermore, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Chester A. Arthur, all took their Presidential Oaths of office hours (into the next day) after having assumed the Presidency. GoodDay 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the President-elect automatically become President (and the incumbent automatically ceases to be President) at noon on 20 January (the date and time currently set by law). The oath is necessary to begin to use that office, however. What I wonder is what happens in the case of the President-elect taking the oath at the inauguration ceremony if it is prior to noon; the Constitution is vague on whether the oath must be taken as President (my reading is that it requires exactly that). I don't know about other instances, but evidence on the C-SPAN archive video of the 1993 inauguration shows President-elect Clinton taking the oath at 11:59 am, so he didn't become President until a bit of time had passed. I know it is, as a practical matter, meaningless (because there's nothing keeping the President from even giving himself the oath under his breath in his chair two minutes later), but can anyone here weigh in on this?129.22.52.19 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution is clear that the president cannot act as president until he gives his oath or affirmation: "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.'" So if he refuses to take the oath, he has no power under the Constitution.Todd Gallagher (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What if it is taken incorrectly (as to the precise wording)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.214.122 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Crackpots will claim that Obama is not the President and should be removed from office (even though it was Roberts who fluffed the line (twice)).—Dah31 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, Obama retook the oath on Wednesday evening.

The Constitution says nothing about the person not being President until they take the oath. It only says "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office..." It also does not prescribe the mode, locale, or method by which the oath is taken. Amendment 20 notes that the successor becomes President the moment the former President's term ends - "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.214.122 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requirement to take oath

The current way this section reads is very misleading. Amendment 20 did not revoke the oath, or "supersede" the oath, from Article 2 of the Constitution. Amendment 20 doesn't say anything about the oath. All it says is that the former president's term ends at noon on January 20th, when the successor then becomes president. But the requirement to take an oath "before he enter on the Execution of his Office" from Article 2 is still in force. That is why we still do it. --207.224.214.122 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See [3]. Several constitutional scholars say it's still mandatory.Karpouzi (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what "several constitutional scholars say", it is indisputable that a) someone is President and b) no one other than Barack Obama is President.-- Jibal (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence/Clause Distinction

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but the new section discussing the Obama/Roberts mistake claims that Roberts failed to pause after the first sentence. Technically, he neglected to pause after the first clause of the Oath, as the Oath itself is only one sentence. I know it may seem trivial, but I do like grammatical correctness. (Also, I'm too lazy to register to edit this page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.134.255 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chief Justice Taft's oath flub during President Hoover's inauguration

While we are adding oath flubs, anyone want to add the flubs during President Hoover's oath of office in 1929 as another point of comparison? There are a number of mistakes. Chief Justice Taft is recorded as having prompted, in question form, "Do you Herbert Hoover do solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and [omitted "will"] to the best of your ability that you will preserve, maintain [changed from "protect"] and defend the Constitution of the United States." I'm uncertain how President Hoover actually repeated it. The source is from "1929 March 4. MP–74/430. 'President Hoover Inaugurated.' Paramount Sound News. Scenes from the inauguration, oath of office, and inaugural address. b/w, sound, 342 feet. Copyright: Paramount Sound News." Can anyone get a hold of this source for verification? The Washington Times apparently reported that the oath was prompted perfectly, albeit in question form, so there is some uncertainty. Information found at http://members.purespeed.com/~mg/documents/HH%20oath.doc --Fleckrl (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't begin to imagine the bloopers made, in the 18th & 19th centuries US prez Inaugurals. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But this is certainly a prominent one, and was mentioned in the news broadcast I was watching after the Obama inauguration (I believe it was CBS News). It would be good if these were documented in one place. --Fleckrl (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplacement of word "faithfully" in Obama's oath

Chief Justice Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully" as he administered the oath of office to Barack Obama today. I'm sure this is going to give rise to a new cottage industry of conspiracy theories (!), but even assuming that the overwhelming majority of people accept that Obama is the 44th President despite this verbal stumble, I suppose we ought to mention the point in some way. Comments? Richwales (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus he said "president TO the United States". He made a mess of it overall. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberts: that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully

Obama: that I will execute (Obama nods to Roberts)

Roberts: the off...faith...faithfully the off...the office of the president of the United States

Obama: the office of President of the United States faithfully

I don't think it should be mentioned until there actually is some controversy with reliable sources mentioning it, which I doubt there would be, since Obama said it correctly and the placement of "faithfully" has no effect on meaning. The head of the supreme court is the one who said it that way after all. I deleted one comment because it was just swearing and opinion. You should limit comments on Wikipedia to discussing ways to improve Wikipedia. Habanero-tan (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can the CJOTUS be impeached for violating the Constitution?—Dah31 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved Talk:Barack_Obama_2009_presidential_inauguration#Text_of_presidential_oath discussion here 71.37.55.209 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Chief Justice Roberts mixed up the placement of the word "faithfully" in the oath of office. Although I'm sure this event will surely give rise to a new cottage industry of conspiracy theories (!), I imagine it should probably be mentioned even if (as I assume) there is no real doubt that Obama is in fact the 44th President. Comments? Richwales (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the Constitution is that, simply by being alive at noon DC time, Obama is the President. Now, he can't do anything with that power until he takes the oath specified in the Constitution, which I don't think he did precisely. However, there's nothing keeping President Obama from taking the correct oath anytime. It doesn't have to be the Chief Justice doing it, nor does it have to be televised. I imagine they'll round up a notary and do it correctly within the hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.52.19 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in by a "normal" Federal judge on Air Force One; as for "requiring" TV coverage...well, when was TV invented again...? I'd imagine it just has to be witnessed, so if there's a problem it can and will be fixed very soon. Marks87 (talk)

He needs to use the exact wording (and being alive at noon isn't sufficient), but surely someone in the administration would notice this and take care of the problem as you note above. And if a federal judge can do it, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father, some sort of minor local official. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article said Roberts did this intentionally, that might be but there is no proof of this and that word should be removed.

I'm sure that some people are going to make a fuss of it, but Roberts just flubbed his line. It wouldn't be the first time that someone got their lines wrong at an inopportune time. If anyone wants to assign "blame", I suppose it would fall with Roberts, but it's not even a tempest in a teapot, more like a tempest in a teaspoon. A minor embarrassemnt, that's all.--RLent (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the rush to edit the article, people are removing references that others added. Well, I guess consensus will be reached eventually.--Larrybob (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have requested semi-protection, someone else seconded it, and hopefully it is forthcoming. Please, people, cool down the edit war. You're wasting your time. Also, please be mindful of The Three Revert Rule--Larrybob (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should bring the article back to where it was yesterday and lock it down for a week. The amount of edits right now is crazy and people are deleting good infromation John Cody (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So i think we all basically agree? Leave it as it is, then come back when a joint agreement is reached? I would support locking it down for about a week too, should we vote? If so, let me be the first to say yea, we should lock it down for a week, quickly perhaps?--MozartEinsteinPhysics! (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Jack Beerman had to say: "It 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," he continued, "It's an open question whether he's president until he takes the proper oath."

He goes on: (paraphrase from source) - "The courts would probably never hear a challenge, Beermann said, 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, he said if he were Obama's lawyer, he would recommend it."

So it's not really a certainty that the oath is required, the Coolidge and Arthur oaths were readministered later (I think the Coolidge one is covered somewhere on Wikipedia). But I don't think we'll ever know for sure because I doubt any court will ever get to interpret this. --IvoShandor (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the oath is also signed in writing, to mitigate any doubt in situations such as this (as are similar oaths taken in the military etc.). So, that should be the end of discussion on this I'd say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.168.179 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. I was wondering if some mistake had been made when Obama seemed to stop. He obviously realised he'd said something wrong, as did Roberts when Obama stopped Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to "some constitutional experts" -- that's weasel wording, OR, and POV-pushing. It also claims that Obama interrupted Roberts, when in fact it was the other way around -- while Obama was stating his name, Roberts spoke over him, adding "do solemnly swear" -- compare to video of Rehnquist administering the oath to Reagan without a hitch by feeding Reagan short phrases and waiting until he had completed them. Finally, repeatedly referring to President Barack Obama as just "Obama" in that paragraph is poor form. -- Jibal (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- "some constitutional experts" is at least "citation needed". Also, the wording "interrupted" seems to imply that Obama incorrectly did so, when in fact there is no "standard" in how the oath is broken up and there are examples of stopping after "I Barack Hussein Obama" (see Bush 2005, etc.). In my opinion Roberts should have made it clear by reading sections without pausing and then clearly stopping to indicate how he intends to break it up. This section, if needed at all, should just stick to facts without trying to imply blame on anyone. Gligeti (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Roberts forgot to pause after the first sentence" is wrong and holds a bias. The point at which Obama begins to speak is no where near the end of the oath's first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhartmann (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Obama interrupetd Roberts by repeating his (Obama's) name, too soon. Surely, a common blooper at US prez Inaugurals (like putting the right hand up, before the CJ requests it). GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Added that on 21 January 2009, President Obama did retake the oath to assure that it was proper Thorswitch (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Quakers take an oath of office?

Why would our Quaker presidents, such as Nixon, take an oath of office, when it is forbidden in their faith to take oaths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what Nixon did, but any President(-elect) who does not want to swear an oath is allowed, by the Constitution, to instead make an affirmation, which is essentially a solemn promise without invoking God at all. I don't believe that that violates Quaker ideals.129.22.52.19 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure Nixon was terribly concerned with violating Quaker ideals, unfortunately. Cherry Cotton (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Other differences with Obama's retake

The BBC News has noted other differences with Obama's retake of the oath. He didn't swear on a Bible (called a corporal oath according to WP Oath), and his wife Michelle was not at his side. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7843881.stm --Fleckrl (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you listen to the retake audio clip carefully at the beginning it sounds like Chief Justice Roberts says, "I don't have my Bible." President Obama responds, "That's ok. Legally it's still binding." --Fleckerl (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't use a Bible but use the word swear: is it swearing or an affirmation? Wouldn't you need to say "affirm" if you don't have a Bible? --steve 23:41 25 January 2009 (PST)

Obama/Roberts

The "oath flub" was entirely Roberts'. He gave Obama the line "I Barack Hussein Obama...", paused (as is ALWAYS DONE---see here for G. W. Bush inauguration in 2005--- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2B8-RME13I and look up any others you like, and then Roberts jumped in with "...do solemnly swear..." before Obama was finished saying his name. Then Roberts changed the word order in a section of the oath that most Americans know by heart: "...that I will faithfully execute..." and Obama, seeming not to want to say it incorrectly, paused to allow Roberts to correct things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyJack (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Obama paused after saying "I will execute", making it uncorrectable at that point. But the fault was entirely Roberts', and the current claim in the article that Obama interrupted him is simply wrong. -- Jibal (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would vehemently argue the "ALWAYS DONE" part. Sometimes it is broken up as "I BHO" [repeat] "do solemnly swear" [repeat], sometimes it is done in one chunk as "I BHO do solemnly swear" [repeat]. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA for historical footages. Note also that the person administering the oath sometimes uses second person, not first (You xxx -- repeated as I xxx), therefore "so help you God" is not necessarily a mistake although seems inconsistent with the start.Gligeti (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So i think we all basically agree? Leave it as it is, then come back when a joint agreement is reached? Or do we agree that there was a mistake and that is noteworthy enough to include?MozartEinsteinPhysics! (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberts NOT ONLY said "faithfully" in the wrong order, he ALSO said, "execute the Office of President TO the United States" -- President "To" The United States? What a dork (I suppose we should expect that, though, since Roberts was appointed by a dork). Taking this "oath" as properly worded did not stop (or even slow down) Nixon or Bush from shredding the Constitution, though, so is reciting one word out of order really going to matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.137.247 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see "Transcript of Obama's Oath / Oath Flubs" below.114.151.124.44 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Integrity of the Oath of Office of President of the Unted States -- The Sequence and Insertion of words

President Obama’s second taking of the oath of office was an act of respect for the letter of the law – a respect that is required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That act of respect however opens another concern about the Integrity of the oath. President Obama’s term in office begun, pursuant to the 20th Amendment, “at noon on the 20th day of January,… ” Next, President Obama was required to take the oath of office as prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, section 1, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office,…” The oath actually appears in quotation marks and it is those quotation marks, combined with respect for the Supreme Law of the Land, which cause a heightened concern that all “i’s” be dotted and “t”s be crossed. According to the White House, President Obama took the oath a second time because of “…an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence.” Some people might consider this a “legal technicality” but all law is a technicality, especially the Supreme Law of the Land – our Constitution. Indeed, both the President and the Chief Justice acted a second time because one word of the oath being out of sequence cast a question whether the President has actually taken the oath as required thus enabling him to enter on the Execution of his Office. The oath, along with those quotation marks, reads, "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." The second taking of the oath makes clear that anything other than the exact sequence of these words as they appear in the Constitution would not be the prescribed oath. It logically follows that adding, or inserting, extra words within the oath also puts the integrity of the oath as taken in question because doing so changes the sequence of the original wording. For example, "I do solemnly swear and pledge that I will…” The rule for proper sequence therefore leads to a no insertion rule and a concern about the integrity of the oath as it has been taken by our Presidents. For example, it is incorrect to add the name of the President at the opening of the sentence after “I” and before “do…” (“I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear …”). President Obama was clearly following a “tradition,” set by his peers when inserting his name within the oath, however, if such an insertion was intended by the Framers of our Constitution they surly would have provided for it within the quotation marks of the oath written by them in Congress. For example, "I (name of President) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will …” Constitutional interpretation, especially when it is a matter of plain language, is not too technical, but when emotion, prejudice, Presidential traditions, or other Result-Oriented interpretations are tolerated, it is no longer the Constitution but it is something else that is being preserved, protected and defended. ARK,Esq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARK,Esq. (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Transcript of Obama's oath / Oath flubs

Why was the transcript of Obama's oath removed? It should be restored!210.196.89.206 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of primary source documents. The transcript of the oath does not explain the recitation; it is a copy of the oath repeated above; and even with an explanation alongside, a full written transcription is not useful for demonstrating this error of speech. —Centrx→talk • 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So why do we give the correct oath at the beginning of the article? Isn't that a primary source document? Here's the source of the transcript: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/20/1751351.aspx It should be restored because it's of historical importance.210.196.89.206 (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The oath of office is the entire subject of this article; the single copy of its text is important to describe it. The "flub" of 2009 is a subordinate and minor matter, and the transcript is not even especially important for describing that subordinate and minor matter. —Centrx→talk • 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Transcript is at File:Barack Obama Oath of Office.ogg Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We have people arguing over previous oaths, because there is no record of what actually transpired. Here, we have a transcript of what actually transpired, but you are arguing that it is not important, even within a section of the article entitled "Oath flubs". It looks like an attempt to flush reality down the memory hole.114.151.124.44 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an attempt to do anything besides keep the article from getting overly long and unwieldy. There is a link to the transcript in the article, I don't see any reason why the full thing needs to be in the article, particularly since the only part that was different is quoted here. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The transcript appears with the audio recording, but the reader doesn't know that unless they happen to go to that page. There should be a line or link that says, "For a transcript, see...." in case readers are looking for the transcript. The description of the error in the article is incorrect. Obama did not repeat Roberts' initial mistake word for word. The reference that goes with that line leads to a transcript, but the transcript is not properly capitalized. The transcript with the audio recording is a better version. 114.151.124.44 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no "second line" of the oath. The oath is one sentence.114.151.124.44 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Affirm

As a Quaker, I’m curious to know how many Presidents have used the “affirm” version of the oath, or to what extent we would know. I’m also curious how the “(or affirm)” part got in there; it seems awfully progressive for 1776. (Then again, so did the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves, I’m sure.) Cherry Cotton (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only President who chose to affirm was Franklin Pierce. Andy120290 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, Pierce is the only president to use "affirm" instead of "swear" and he was not a Quaker. The only two Quaker presidents we have had (Nixon and Hoover) both used "swear." Todd Gallagher (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So help "you" God

Roberts actually said so help you God, not so help me God as appears in the article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.101.74.162 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The oath has been prompted this way in former inaugurations. For example, in President Reagan's in 1981. I'm not sure which is correct, however.--207.224.214.122 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I imagine that "So help me God" is the correct way to prompt this, since the person repeating the oath is to repeat the words verbatim.--207.224.214.122 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You folks might want to bother to listen to audio before commenting. Roberts didn't "say" or "prompt" anything, he asked "So help you God?" and Obama answered "So help me God". -- Jibal (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"So help me God" is not part of the oath. The President could say whatever he wanted after the oath, he could recite the digits of pi, he could "I like pizza" or he could say "So help me God". The difference between these phrases is that the public expects to hear "So help me God", and it's the one the President intends to say. It's just prompting to remind the President of something additional that he wishes to say. "So help you God?" is different, that is a question, and is essentially a religious test for office.--RLent (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out the 1961 Inauguration of John F. Kennedy. Chief Justice Warren administered the entire oath, in a form of a question: 'Do you, John F. Kennedy solemly swear. That you will execute the office of President of the United States. And will to the best of your abilitiy. Preserve, protect & defend the Constitution of the United States. So help you God? GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This gets intricate. Carefully watch this youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA. at about 2:00 minutes. (I would like to reference this video, but have difficulties with the format) You see Warren administering the oath to JFK, He started "You John F....." there is no "Do you". It was an assertion, meant to be repeated verbatim, as it was. Roberts, for the first time made the last phrase "So Help Me God" into a question, and based on this fact, I inserted this paragraph in the article.

I noticed that the section "2009 Inauguaration" has been changed to "Flubs in Oath" I had added this to the earlier discussion of the 2009 oath, and no longer applies. It could be that it is too intricate for Wikipedia, so I won't turn this into a dispute, and there is an element of conjecture on my part, even if I feel it is validated by evidence.

"While the mistakes in Robert's speaking the exact words of the oath was the most reported part of this event, it masks what must have been his intentional ending of a tradition that goes back at the least seventy six years. During this period, based on actual films of the oath, the final phrase "So Help Me God" which is not part of the constitutional oath, was spoken as an assertive statement by the person prompting the oath, usually the chief justice. This time it was clearly expressed in the form of a question, with the characteristic rising inflection. By doing this, Roberts lends credence to his contention that these four words are being spoken after, rather than as part of, the constitutional oath of office."

- :::Roberts assertion that these words are "after completion of the oath" are part of a sworn statement in the Plaitiff's response to Newdows suit that is difficult to isolate for a link. Arodb (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on existing film clips of the inaugurate oaths from the earliest, 1933, (see Youtube "39 words that define a presidencey"Roberts expression of So Help Me God, as both the tone of a question and a variation of the grammatical person, from 1st to 2nd is the first time ever. It is noteworthy and will be placed in the the So Help Me God section until there is a refutation of this statementArodb (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The funniest thing of all? The Constitution doesn't require anybody to administer the oath of office, to the President. Obama could've said the words, himself. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of Obama's Executive Power

Considering the "suspension of executive power" that occurs between the moment the successor becomes President (at noon on January 20th) and their taking the oath of office which grants them executive power, when did President Obama obtain executive power? --Fleckrl (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide sources or citation for this "suspension of executive power" that you mention? For example, the U.S. Constitution does not say that anything to the effect that a person has no presidential powers until the oath is taken. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article II Section 1 Paragraph 8 of the Constitution reads (emphasis is mine): "BEFORE HE ENTER ON THE EXECUTION OF HIS OFFICE, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-114.151.124.44 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia article? It has a section entitled "Suspension of the executive power"--Fleckerl (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that section of the article, which has a single source, from 1916. In any case, we're all agreed that "the new president would not have the constitutional power to perform any executive function until the oath of office was taken". Your initial question perhaps is better rephrased as "Did the oath taken on January 20th meet the constitutional requirement for assuming presidential powers?" The implication, of course, is that if the answer is "no", then any presidential actions taken by Obama until the (second) oath-taking on the 21st would not be valid.

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that a good case can be made that there was clear intent to do what the constitution required, and that misplacing a word does not invalidate the oath-taking; thus the oath was valid. We won't know for sure, of course, unless someone litigates an action taken in the first 36 hours of the presidency. (The second oath would thus be for an abundance of a caution; it would preclude any lawsuits regarding anything subsequent to that event.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

my recent edit under "flubs"

I think "so help you god" is flubby on the part of the chief jus.

is it's own flub? or do three goofs 1. "office of prez to the US" 2.the "faithfully" misplacement and 3.you help you god" make up one collective flub? whew! (don't care actually). I just know that "so help you god" falls under a "flub" heading.

it may not be a constitutional part of the oath. it may not be historically supported going back 50 or 100 years (rising intonation not withstanding). I think the tv audience's expectations here were clear. I have lotsa thoughts. but, yeah- it's a simple call and response since at least reagan. it's not swearing in a witness, where the standard is "you help you god", "i do". Cogido'll aka Huh? 19:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

your explanation of this as a flub is refuted by his repeating the same as a question and a switch to second person the next day at the white house. It was his response to his statement that So Help Me God was after the oath.Arodb (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberts asked Obama "So help you God?"

Seems like it would be worthwhile to note that Roberts phrased "So help me God" as a question, "So help you God?". I haven't come across any other instance of this happening. Also, it would put Obama, or any president, in the awkward position of having to actually say "no" should they choose not to include the phrase. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyatnight (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It has happened several times previously that the Chief Justice has said, "So help you God" (look at past inauguration vidoes). But I'm not sure if those other times it was asked in a question tone (with rising inflection). In addition, it appears to me that it is the President's choice whether to say "So help me God," not the Chief Justice's. Several news media noted that Obama already had plans to use the phrase weeks before the inauguration. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/61437916/1 --Fleckrl (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on existing film clips of the innauguaral oaths from the earliest, 1933, (see Youtube "39 words that define a presidencey"Roberts expression of So Help Me God, as both the tone of a question and a variation of the gramatical person, from 1st to 2nd is the first time ever. It is noteworthy and will be placed in the the So Help Me God section until there is a refutation of my statementArodb (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just randomly listened to some of the oaths on YouTube. Here are the results of what the oath givers said: Harry S. Truman, 1949, "So help you God"; Dwight Eisenhower, 1957 "So help you God"; John F. Kennedy, 1961, "So help you God"; Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, "So help you God"; Richard Nixon, 1973, "So help me God"; Gerald Ford, 1974, "So help me God"; Jimmy Carter, 1977, "So help me God"; Ronald Reagan, 1981, "So help you God"; George H.W. Bush, 1989, "So help me God"; Bill Clinton, 1993, "So help me God"; George W. Bush, 2001, "So help me God". They ALL prompted the President to say this, even though it is NOT part of the oath. Another interesting thing - some oath givers omit the President's middle name completely (with Richard Nixon in 1973 and Jimmy Carter in 1977) and some use only the President's middle initial (with Gerald Ford in 1974). So simply "Barack Obama" would have been sufficient.118.4.190.177 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point is made below (The Integrity of the Oath of Office...) that including the President's name in the oath is not required by the Constitution, at best, and is therefore even unconstitutional, at worst.118.4.190.177 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute regarding 'so help you god'

I know it's been referred to further up this page, but I'd just adding this here to link to the {{dubious}} tag I'm about to add to the the Oath of office of the President of the United States#"So help me God" section. The computer I'm using right now doesn't have speakers so I can't listen to the video, but I distinctly do remember seeing a youtube video 2 nights ago in which several CJs did prompt the President with the phrase "so help you god". I know some people have mentioned Robert's tone of voice, but I'm dubious as to whether that's enough to support the statement that this if the first time. I'm minded to remove it myself but am interested as to what anybody else thinks. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the edit based on this video that shows the oath by 5 different chief justices to 12 presidents, as I wrote all that are available in recorded form. Here's the site from Youtube, 39 words that make a president, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA

Roberts was, in fact, the first to change the phrase "So Help Me God" to a question intonation, along with change from first to the second person. He repeated this for the retaking. My point that this "may have been" the result of the Newdow suit is hypothetical, thus the "may be" but Roberts was served at his home, and read the argument. This is the a reasonable supposition why he would have deviated from 76 years of tradition.Arodb (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't include information that violates the no original research policy, and this pretty much runs right over it. If you can find a reliable source referencing it, then we can cite that. Otherwise the assertion will have to go. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Until it can be improved, I've removed the paragraph in question and posted it below. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see response under "removed text" belowArodb (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

Although Newdow lost his plea for an injunction in District Court on January 15th, his lawsuit may have had a direct impact on the Chief Justice, who was served with the original complaint at his home. In giving the oath of office to President Obama, for the first time since we have sound recordings, the four extra-constitutional words were asked in the form of a question in the second person("So help you God?") , signaling that when spoken by the President they were his optional words, and not those enshrined in the constitution. This phrasing was repeated identically in the corrected oath of office the next day.

It is not dubious, it is factual that the words "So Help Me God" have never been changed in grammatical person, or spoken as a question. There is a recording of every first oath of office since 1933 (Youtube: "39 words that make a president" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA where this can be verified. The sentence you removed is factual, and defines the events of a lawsuit that specifically related to this oath of office. I am restoring it as is, and await further discussion before removal. Arodb (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's based merely on your opinion of how he spoke it, then that is a violation of WP:OR, which is one of our core content policies. If there is citable evidence from a reliable source, then it can be included so long as it is cited. Atm,it is just your opinion and wikipedia doesn't just publish contributors opinions. I'm reverting. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I maintain this is factual, not an opinion. The final word of the phrase "So Help Me God" was in an upward tone, as verified by listening to the two recordings in the article. This has been noted in numerous article and online commentary. The change from the first person, used in the first 35 words, to the second person used in the last four words is also factual and verifiable from listing to the two recordings. That this has never been done previously is illustrated in the youtube video of every first oath of office of each president since 1933, the link supplied here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQhWtRW-KKA. That Roberts recieved Newdow's complaint at his home, is also a fact, that that I have included a reference for in the article The possibility that the change in form of "so help me god" was a result of a suit that specifically demanded a demarcation follows from the details of the suit, which is available in full in Newdows web site, http://www.restorethepledge.com/ (go to inauguration at lower right for full legal papers) I will alter the sentence to say the result was consistent with the demands of his suit and leave causation out, which is inferential. If you have a question of any of the above, please specify which one. And if not self evident from the two recordings, I will provide you further reasonable verification. Arodb (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's been noted by numerous articles, then cite them, citation of something like this isn't optional. And "it's my opinion of the video" is not a reliable source. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Agree with Chrism, without a reliable source, it's WP:OR. Dayewalker (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one citation from Huffington Post, that references Jeffry Rosen's (a highly published legal scholar) observation of the Question inflection, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patt-morrison/chief-justice-roberts-rea_b_159668.html , Simply googling "So help Me God?" by Roberts will provide many more. I will include this reference if you prefer when we reach a consensus on the sentence being contested---- but the recording are right on this article to show this, so it is a restatement of the observable record. As for Roberts being the first to use this form, true there has not been any published article on this. While the "no original research" is in important standard of wikipedia; when there is a valid record of every first inaugural oath of office over 76 years, 12 presidents, and 5 Chief Justices, (supplied Youtube link above) this is a fact (although in raw form) that can be included in a Wikipedia article. I would suggest, since you are questioning my conclusion of this Youtube document, that you verify it. Connecting two or more facts in a single paragraph is not original research if each fact is verifiable, and there are no contestable conclusions made. I will refrain from reverting until I hear from youArodb (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While the reference is a start, in general opinion pieces and blog entries aren't considered especially reliable sources. "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." ( see WP:RS#News organizations) So we can say that Jay Rosen believes that Roberts was asking a question; we can't say that Roberts did so, at least not with that reference.
The second point however violates WP:SYNTH, and I still don't think that the youtube video in itself proves anything. Without a cite saying Roberts asked it in a question form AND no one else previously has, then the inference being made is original research as we can't show a reliable source for it. Having the youtube link there is fine. Referencing it ourselves to show something without some intervening secondary source is problematic. It's why in general consensus is to rely on secondary rather than primary sources. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are bringing up interesting issues. As newspapers and magazines are declining, online media with it's lower criteria for entry, becomes more of how information is disseminated. In law, precedent is only meaningful if given by an appellate court, so we have an entity whose function to to decide what is fact. This is of course limited to a narrow range of cases that are "ripe" "moot" and with enough riding on the outcome to pay the cost of accessing the legal system.

Do you want to work with me to find a way to ascertain that my statement in my previous comment is accurate? Or is the lack of specific article that I presume would have to be from a peer reviewed journal, or printed in a traditional newspaper, enough to close the issue that the contested text is not appropriate for Wikipedia? Are you a colleague in an attempt to disseminate accurate information, or are you an antagonist, using a strict reading of rules to obstruct this goal? And as far as accepting legitimate source material, the AP report on Newdow's lawsuit on January 14, saying that it wanted to "stop Obama from saying "So Help Me God" happens to be false, yet I presume this would be acceptable. We could continue this, but it makes no sense unless you are actually interested in advancing the larger goal of wikipedia, which is to educate the public. 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs)

No offense intended here, but you seem to be attempting to portray yourself as a proponent of "accurate information," and people who disagree with you as not interested in such. That's not the case. A quick reading of WP:RS will show what exactly a reliable source is, and why secondary sources are vital to wikipedia. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean someone is trying to obstruct the truth, only that your case hasn't been proven yet. Dayewalker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dayewalker here; the standard for inclusion here isn't 'is something true?', which is an inherently objective test, but is it verifiable. From WP:Verifiability, which is one of our core content policies:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

I don't want to appear like I'm just shouting random guidelines at you to be annoying; the point of an encyclopedia is to collate accurate, reliable information. To ensure its reliable means that readers need to be able to know where its coming from (so we cite reliable, verifiable sources) and is unbiased (our commitment to a neutral point of view). Sometimes it can be annoying, and I've been in situations where I've wanted to add something that I personally know but haven't had the sources to hand at that point to prove it, but if I add something then a reader should be able to see where I got that information from so they can evaluate it themselves. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

let's try to break down the sentence that I want included into components, leaving all conclusion out of the statement.

let's start with this one: Based on at least one citation from the huffington post that cited Jeffry Rosen, who has published hundreds of articles and is a noted legal scholar. said words to this effect: Roberts changed his recitation of "So help you god" to a question. If this is not a good enough link, plus the actual recording on this site, then I'll just accept that the standards, as defined by whatever group is more persistent, is what it is. The above statement is in fact, self evident. I'll stop here, since this conversation has, perhaps inadvertently, become more about winning a point. I love Wikipedia, but it has it's limitations. You write that a reader should be able to check a point. But most relevent information is not in easily accessed form. I wrote several essays on Dailykos.com, under my same user name as here. In it, because I could write a much longer essay, I linked to the Newdow suit, and cited both his complaint and Roberts statement. It happens to be too long for a Wikipedia article on the subject of the oath of office.

This is why every authoritative encyclopedia, or responsible newspaper, has editors and fact checkers. Now Wikipedia does not, and this can be a serous flaw, since a factual summary can be based on verifiable evidence, but the evidence is made in a more complex detailed argument. Actually in this dialog you are acting as a fact checker, and I would welcome this function. It is valuable that another active user challenges each of my statements. But then, you don't seem to have spent the 6 minutes to have watched the youtube oath of office video, which is original research. And I would direct you to every point that I make for verification.

If this is not how Wikipedia works, then so be it. I can only use the tools that are available to me and the media (wikipedia being one of the major ones) that actually exist, not how I want them to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note revised 4th paragraph of So Help Me God. I excluded conclusions from the first paragraph that you objected to.

Chief Justice Roberts defense was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit. (link letter from Roberts Counsel from the response to the suit) In giving the oath of office to President Obama, for the first time since we have sound recordings, the four extra-constitutional words were different than what preceded in syntax and person. (link youtube video of 12 oaths) They were put in the form of a question in the second person ("So help you God?") This differentiated phrasing, for reasons never explained by Roberts, was repeated identically in the corrected oath of office the next day.Arodb (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Here is a link from a Christian discussion group that makes the same observation, that the "So help you God?" was in response to Newdow's suit that is the thrust of this paragraph. But acceding to your request, I have removed mentioning that possibility in the disputed paragraph. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_thread/thread/a327005646a837f9Arodb (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added citations complete with quotations to both the complaint and Roberts' counselor's reply to the paragraph. I changed defense to reply as it's considered more neutral. The youtube link and inference made is still not properly cited, and as such still constitutes original research, hence why I removed the end of that paragraph. It's not enough to ust refer to the sound recordings as a primary source (other than to say there is a sound recording). Any analysis of the recording itself has to come from a secondary source, otherwise it's OR. But we're getting there. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps we have gone as far as we can go. It would help to de-personalize this if you could guide me to the location within the wikipedia community where this issue has been debated and a consensus reached. As you say, "Truth can be sacrificed to the existing norms of no original research" and I can understand how that could be necessary, since legitimacy of articles is more important than being cutting edge.

However, secondary sources, can be, and often are erroneous. The first definition of "factoid" is something considered true because it is repeatedly mis-reported in the media, even though it is actually false. So the requiring secondary sources can be perpetuation of error, something that an individual editor at Wikipedia can correct. I disagree that a video from Youtube that is accepted as being a compilation of actual public events is not acceptable. And it happens that in our current media environment that only survives on audience and advertisers revenue, publishing a discussion of this issue is not the best use of their time or space as business decision.

One option seems to be within the Wikipedia Foundation Concept, WikiNews, with this article as an example: Having been closely involved in the Newdow suit from its inception I have done the research, and followed the case closely. An article in Wikinews is reviewed by various levels of users and administrators. Would facts in contention in such an article satisfy your interpretation of appropriate secondary sourcing on the points that we have n dispute?Arodb (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy on original research is at WP:OR, and any discussion about it will be at Wikipedia_talk:No original research, so if you wish to propose changing it then that would be the best place to start, though I suggest you read Wikipedia:How to create policy as well.

Regarding wikinews, I know that we generally don't approve of the use of wikipedia articles as references for other articles (as a wikipedia article itself isn't considered a reliable source). I've never seen it brught up as an issue, but I presume wikinews articles would fall under that same category. However any reliable sources used for that wikinews article could be included in the article here direct without referencing the wikinews article.

My objection to the youtube video is not the video itself, as I've said numerous times now. It's perfectly within guidelines to have a link to the video. It's original research however for us to start attempting to interpret the video and make speculative guesses connecting it with other events. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

appreciate your using the more direct ref for the two parts of the Newdow Case. I've offered the Youtube video as a primary source, that is true, but the links to you provided acknowledge that this is a subtle area. First, do you acknowledge that the evidence supports, with no published disagreement, that every first inaugural oath since 1933 until this one, the 35 words of the constitution, and the four additional words, were recited by the chief justice identically in tone and syntax, that there was no differentiation, weakening Roberts assertion that it was after the oath? Are you denying that Roberts did, in fact, initiate a variation in the prompting of the oath of office?-------------These to me are fact. The presumption that he made this change due to Newdow's suit is conjecture, and I agreed to remove it. But the two above statements of how the oath had been administered and how Roberts changed it, seem irrefutable. We live in an evolving world, with mainstream newspapers at half staff, and those that are left often more biased than any Wikipedia article. If this is to be the new way that information is disseminated, it takes a broad interpretation of the rules, when it deals with an important issue that has not been written about by the traditional medial. BTW, did you ever watch the youtube video?

For closure, how is this as the final sentence: " Although filmed recordings indicate this was never done previously (youtube link), Roberts differentiated the optional words by changing it to a question, So help YOU God?" " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Any inference we (as opposed to a cited reliable source) make based on the video recording is original research. Whether you or I think Roberts said it as a question or not, as a component part of the oath recital or not, in the same style as his predecessors or not, or whether or not he just talks funny, is fundamentally irrelevant. No original research is one of our core content policies. The inferences you're making, no matter how valid or blindingly obvious you may think they are, are still original research. As I've said previously, wikikpedia is based on verifiability, not truth. The final sentence you propose for example is still uncited and still constitutes synthesis without evidence of a source bringing everything together.

If you think the no original research policy is confusing or gets in the way, then the solution is to get a community consensus to change that policy. But for now, what you're attempting to add (imo at least) violates that policy. - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NOR Noticeboard

I've listed this section at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard to see if we can find a third opinion to have a look over this. - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort and sincerity. This could be the occasion to push Wikipedia to a next step in its monumental endeavor to bring information about the world to the world. I'm one of the older users here, born in 1940, so while I have certain experiential advantages, the ability to navigate what is to me a byzantine system of validation and dispute is difficult. There is no perfect system of discerning or disseminating that elusive thing called "valid truth." This is why academic departments, specifically Columbia University's English department could not hire any more tenure track professors, since a consensus of who was doing valid research was not obtainable.

Even court precedent, actually designed to provide legal truth, is currently lacking on many issues, specifically church state and criminal procedures. And as far as validity of secondary sources, the N.Y. Times reports of WMD by Judy Miller before the Iraq war could have legitimized a wikipedia article, yet now it was admitted to be wrong. Within the last month I was able to clarify a major OpEd printed in the New York Times that they published as a letter. The San Diego Union Tribune had a glaring error in an editorial during the election, that I corrected and they placed on the lead Letter to the Editor. It's asking a lot for Wikipedia to do better than these institutions. It might be best to explore the Wikinews option. There, in principle, the writer gets to elaborate a thesis, verified by references that are not necessarily supported by secondary sources. It demands that anyone who challenges it, or who validates it, do the work of checking some more arcane resources. The legitimacy of the article could be enhanced, for less time sensitive articles, by allowing those mentioned to make comments. But once this has been validated by the community, it would constitute a type of peer review and would be acceptable in a Wikipedia article.

You seem much more familiar with the procedures to try to achieve this, and I would appreciate any guidance in this area. The pipeline of enumerated legitimate secondary sources are just too narrow to make this the sole criteria for Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, especially when someone has specific knowledge on a given subject. Putting aside our dispute for a moment, on a broader perspective, in this time of passing out stimuluses to the economy, one condition of any academic or research facility getting government grants should be that any peer reviewed article or research paper be open to the public on the internet, so at least this category of secondary sources would be available to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Coming from the NOR noticeboard. Here is my evaluation:
  1. The youtube video is not a usable source for the article text. (There is long-standing consensus around this.) It may, if it complies with all copyright laws and our copyright restrictions, be usable as an external link, but that is a different question I do not attempt to answer.
  2. The only other potential source under consideration is this webpage at The Huffington Post. This webpage is a blog entry by Patt Morrison, not news reporting.[4]. It is currently her most recent blog post at that site.
  3. Past consensus of Wikipedians is that blog pages at the Huffington Post are viable as sources only for the opinion of that blog page's author. (Their news reporting is more debatable, with different standards for reprints of wire service material and for their original reporting.) As such, the blog page is usable if it meets the test for material self-published by an author and is described as being that author's opinion.
  4. The rules for self-published material can be found at WP:SPS. Relevant here is the requirement that the self-publishing author be an established expert on the topic of this article. There is not a shred of evidence visible that Ms. Morrison is an expert on the presidential oath of office or oaths in general.
  5. I therefore conclude that this source is not usable, and the material is not sourced to anything we can even consider using.
  6. Even if it were sourced reliably, there would remain questions about whether it should be noted. I want to remind the article's editors that having a source for material is a necessary but not sufficient condition for including that material in an article. I doubt that this material would merit inclusion even if sourced. Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article about the topic, and not news coverage of the 2009 ceremony. The article's coverage of 2009 is unduly prominent, and I recommend the article's editors read Wikipedia:Recentism to remind themselves that we are supposed to write with balance and historical perspective since we are writing an encyclopedia. GRBerry 17:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Method of the Oath

Didn't President Washington recite his oath instead of just repeating it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.233.134 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll go ask him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.79.108 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"So help me god" section

This seems like a very ambiguous title for the section. A more appropriate title might be, "controversy over including god in oath". Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolf228 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

the the?

In The requirement to take the oath there's a "the the". I'd fix it as an obvious typo, apart from the hidden comment "This is a verbatim quote from the text. Do not alter". Does that apply here? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The hidden comment was added here [5] and the error was already present so I've boldly fixed it. Pedro :  Chat  07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought that was the case. It was something that AWB flagged up, but the note made me nervous about fixing it till it had been checked by a second pair of human eyes. Thanks! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines: under the 2nd audio file hotlink for Obama's correct oath taken the next day in the Oval Office: "Obama retakes takes the Oath of office of the President of the United States" someone please fix this as I am only a casual user of Wiki. Dave 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

I deleted two sections -- Requirement to take the oath and Suspension of the Executive Power. I'm not commenting on the merits of the content, only that the content is not sourced -- the one source is used repeatedly, which is a violation of policy, and anyway looks spurious -- is full of weasel words and I suspect the editor's own views. The Source tag was up for over a year and nothing was done, so the content was removed. The sections violate policy, not guidelines. If you want to include these sections, then please follow Wikipedia policy. Actually, the article is better as it now stands, without the sections. J M Rice (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

image

Why is there a 26-year-old image of the presidential oath being taken? The image should be of the current president being sworn in regardless of who he or she is, what party affiliation, or what Wikipediaites think of him or her. That should probably include instances where the VP or others in the heirarchy move into the office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.231 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oath of office of the President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081210140354/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/intelligence/intelltech.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/intelligence/intelltech.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

The inaugruation of Gerald Ford was a public event. Hundreds of people were invited, there was a formal speech, it was covered on Television, and there was a luncheon. Plus there were souvenirs.

Theodore Roosevelt's first was also public, as there were hundreds of guests in attendence (the photographers were kicked out as they were literally fighting with each other). Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oath of office of the President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swearing-in/bibles
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114004206/http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/con1777.htm to http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/con1777.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121194437/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/20/1751351.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/20/1751351.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit about the administration section vs. shmG section.

First, a quote from Rudy Giuliani today in the news regarding President Trump (18 Dec 2018) notes “...the President wasn’t under oath.” at a time when he was, in fact under oath, even if it was this oath, and not the courtroom oath seen on a great number of television programs re: swearing to tell the truth, etc. So, there may be an increase in traffic to this page fwiw.

Second, I realized there’s some conflict, I think existing between the information imparted near the end of the sction regarding the administration of the oath, and the beginning of the next section. The ‘admin’ section has fairly detailed stats regarding exactly which Presidents used which methods of solemnizing their taking of the oath. In the very first sentences of the next section re: “...so help me God.” the author of the section states “very little is known about...”, yet we were just treated to a quite detailed review. Maybe I didn’t understand the “shmG” section, as the reason for addressing the ‘controversy’ kinda escapes me. I mean, I couldn’t care less what bible they use, or if they solemnize using the boxed blu-ray set of Star Trek The Original Series. Which would be awesome. I *do* care that we, as a society, retain *some way* to solemnize oaths. If for no other reason than the fact that the answer to the question “Is there nothing sacred anymore?” should be that we *do* still hold some things sacred, telling the truth being one of them, living by some sort of code, some brand of ethics is another. We have never been able to trust any one person who lives without a set of ethics. So there’s that.

RobbertMacGreighgor (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Reference to federal suit in "So help me God" section

The "So help me God" section currently references a federal suit that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article:

Chief Justice Roberts' reply was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.

The suit mentioned is meant to reference a previous block that was removed 27 October 2020 (which previous existed in the article for 10+ years). It seems like the original text about the suit should be added back in, or the current text should be reworded/removed to avoid confusion. --Enigmango (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)