Talk:United States presidential inauguration

[[]]Template:USP-Article

obama the president of the u.s

"…swearing-ins" or "…swearings-in"? —Mark Adler (markles) 02:22, 9 Jshitanuary 2006 (UTC)

The correct term would be inauguration. The oath taking, even hastily arranged after the death of a President, is an inaugural ceremony. NoSeptember ^talk 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, three presidents did not "swear" their oath, but rather "affirmed" it. So the article content is not currently in congruence with the article title. NoSeptember ^talk 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• So should we/you/I rename the article?—Mark Adler (markles) 18:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I'll do it now. NoSeptember ^talk 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scripture

The web pages:

• http://www.eadshome.com/OathScripture.htm
• http://www.beliefnet.com/features/presidents_bibles.html

list the following as sources:

1. Bowen, Clarence W. The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington, N.Y. 1892, p. 72, Illustration.
2. Listed in the files of Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, source not given.
3. Wright, John. Historic Bibles in America, N.Y. 1905, p. 46.
4. List compiled by Clerk of the Supreme Court, 1939.
5. One source (The Chicago Daily Tribune, Sept. 23, 1881, p. 5) says that
Garfield and Arthur used the same passage, but does not indicate which one.
6. Hutchins, Stilson. The National Capitol, Washington, 1885, p. 276.
7. Harper's Magazine, August 1897.
8. Senate Document 116, 65th Congress, 1st Session, 1917.
9. New York Times, Apr. 13, 1945, p. 1, col. 7.
10. Facts on File, Jan. 16-22, 1949, p. 21.
11. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1953, p. 19.
12. New York Times, Jan. 22, 1957, p. 16.
13. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1961, p. 8, col. 1.
14. Mooney, Booth. The Lyndon Johnson Story, p. 1.
15. Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court via phone July 1968.
16. Washington Post, Jan. 20, 1969, p. A1.
17. New York Times, Aug. 10, 1974, p. A1.
18. Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1977, p. A17.
19. White House Curator's Office.
20. Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1997, p. A14.
21. Inauguration staff. George W. Bush had hoped to use the Masonic Bible that had been used both by George Washington in 1789, and by the President's father, George H. W. Bush, in 1989. This historic Bible had been transported, under guard, from New York to Washington for the inauguration but, due to inclement weather, a family Bible was substituted instead.

Surely the inclusion of this information is only of peripheral value? Its not material to the inauguration itself or the things historically associated with it, such as judges, oaths, inauguration parades... Of course a bible has been used since the beginning. But to include the details is exactly the same as including a list of songs played at inaugurations, etc. The only reason why people bother to compile this data at all is because the compilers feel that the intersection of their own personal activities and the activities of society/government somehow justifies the expression of such personal interests. 118.90.121.65 (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the column can go. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2007 Merge discussion

Seems like the list in this article and the content of Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States should all end up in one spot. Creating this section tag for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Might not be a bad idea. Don't forget Inauguration Day.--evrik ^(talk) 18:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Made the merge. --evrik ^(talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Clinton

In researching this, I've not found a reason given for why Clinton gave his first address on Wednesday, January 21st, 1993. If Tuesday was the 20th, why was it not given then? This is the only seeming discrepancy for which I can't seem to find an explanation for. Anyone?--Hraefen 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

January 20, 1993 was a Wednesday, not a Tuesday (Jan. 21 was a Thursday). Clinton was sworn in on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 1993. If you read Wednesday, Jan. 21, 1993 anywhere, it was an obvious typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.64.197 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

Whether or not Hoover swore or affirmed is the subject of contradictory testimony. The source listed, however, gives a bible verse, so I have put that in the list. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge

I believe, Coolidge was administered the Presidential oath a 2nd time in August 1923; due to suggestion his father wasn't qualified. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

Preident Ford's inauguration had everything but the parade. Nixon's impending resignation made planning for the event possible, and yes he did indeed make an inaugural address. It was covered on national TV and everything.Ericl (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he said it wasn't an inaugural address, as I have cited. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was quoted as such on the wall of his presidential libraryEricl (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you going to believe: the library, or himself? Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The library would be a documented, verifiable source. So I'd go with the library. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the quotation from Ford is from the library's website. I have to say I'm not seeing the point here. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There seems to be no reason that I can see why this and Inauguration Day should be separate articles, especially considering how much of the latter article is about the ceremony itself. Propaniac (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Merge 'em. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Do we need to put this kind of thing to a vote? If so, mine is for merge baby merge. danis1911 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The merge has been done. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

World War II

One line reads, "World War II forced two swearing-ins to be held at other locations in Washington, D.C." Both locations are the White House and the phrase is unsourced. I'm not quite clear of the difference between using the White House versus the Capitol during World War II. I would have thought that a more rational reasoning was FDR's health, since it was only his 1945 inauguration that was held at the White House. Any other thoughts? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that line is problematic. This source [1] from the White House Historical Association indicates that the White House hosted the inaugural in order to curtail expenses, and that it was later learned that FDR's health played into the decision as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

convocation speech

Could something be added about the convocation speech--how long has it been a tradition, who has given them, and so forth? 67.122.210.149 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean invocations and benedictions and other prayers? I've added a bit.--Erp (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC):)

Question concerning conditions of inauguration

What conditions must be met for the President-elect to be officially sworn-in? Let's be as thorough as possible-- when exactly does the transition occur? The article doesn't mention this directly, but maybe it's implied by the article and I'm just being obtuse. TennysonXII (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The law (the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) says at noon on January 20th during an election year. That is the precise time the elected president and vice president takes office. They may take the oath before or afterwards, but that doesn't change the exact time they assume the duties of their office, per federal law.

As for qualifications, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Qualification.2C_disqualification_and_common_practice and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility 64.209.16.204 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, don't you mean following an election year? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Noon as determined by whose clocks? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. And I was actually referring to conditions surrounding the ceremony itself; I should have stated that previously. TennysonXII (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess some US gov't scientific institution has the official time. All the atomic clocks around the world are calibrated to be within fractions of a second of each other (since it has to be for physics experiments I guess) so I don't think mentioning "whose clocks" is that important. Just "noon" is enough, people can "fill in the blanks" :D 118.90.104.151 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flags

I understand that the flags hanging from the Capitol today are the current flag, flanked by Betsy Ross flags, and those flanked by the flag of the Union when Illinois joined. I couldn't find a citation for this anywhere, other than the program for the 2005 inauguration which mentioned the outside flags having 28 stars, "in recognition of the entrance of Texas into the Union." Anyone have a source saying how long this has been going on, etc? Miken32 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

scriptural verse

I'm not clear why there needs to be a "scriptural verse" column in the table of inaugurations. More than half the inaugurations have no information in this column, and frankly, I think it's not that important. The role or placement of scriptural verses is not even discussed in the article. It would be far more useful to have a notes column with, for example, links to historic inaugural addresses, poets laureate inaugural poems, etc. -- whatever was of significance for that particular inauguration. For those inaugurations where the scriptural verse was particularly important, by all means, that could be included; but right now a column dedicated solely to scriptural verses is wasted space. I propose eliminating it. I would support creation of an article on the role of religion in US Presidential inaugurations that could include this information. But here, it stands out as irrelevant, relative to the rest of the article. (--Lquilter (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well as I was writing someone was adding in inaugural addresses, which is great. But it makes the "scriptural verse" column stand out as a poor use of space even more. --Lquilter (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This column was apparently added by User:Evrik (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_inauguration&diff=62602159&oldid=60315095 diff]) in July 2006, without discussion. The user has apparently just retired, so isn't available for discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the scripture column is out of place, but that is my own personal opinion. In today's address, President Obama made reference to Corinthians 13:11 (for completeness, if it is to remain), although it was only a partial quote (and I only recognized it because it was in the movie Hackers) Quinn (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why this section? It's not as if every prez is required to quote from the Bible. Can we nix it? Douglemeister (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference section being wrongly used for footnotes

"References" 22-24 (currently) are being used as footnotes wrongly and unnecessarily.

1. ^ Affirmed instead of swearing the oath.
2. ^ Did not kiss Bible.
3. ^ Opened at random.

In my opinion, these should be removed from the reference section and placed in the table they are referenced by directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcloud33 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)