Someday in the future, I will be doing an oral argument in an appeal, and will not know a case / the record. When the court laments, "Counsel, shouldn't you know this case / the record", at least I can now rejoin, "Hey, it's not like I am the chief justice of the united states and just flubbed the administration of the oath of office for the POTUS."

All my future malpractice now looks better by comparison.

^^^ Ooops thought I was posting to Randy's thread.

Got it, J. Thanks

One of the things that editors of the Harvard Law Review are told (but that Kerr unsurprisingly was not told at Yale) is that split infinitives are to be avoided.

When Taft read the oath of office, instead of asking Hoover to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution he said, “preserve, maintain and defend.”

http://fpc.state.gov/114510.htm

One of the things that editors of the Harvard Law Review are told (but that Kerr unsurprisingly was not told at Yale) is that split infinitives are to be avoided.

I enjoy splitting infinitives, but I should be clear that it's just my own preference (I didn't get into Yale Law, and I never took the Harvard Law Review competition).

Reading all the fun and games, it occurs to me there may be an actual problem one day with taking the oath.

Article II section 1 says "Before <i>he</i> enter on the Execution of his Office, <i>he</i> shall take the following Oath or Affirmation."

One of these days, we'll elect a woman to the office of the President, or one will be appointed to the office via succession. Will we need to amend the constitution before <i>she</i> can enter on the Execution of <i>her</i> Office?

Comm'n guys. Who cares? Really!

Forget the real or imagined split infinitive. The larger issue, reflecting dogma more than pedantry, is why Roberts felt compelled to ask, post-oath per se, "so help you god?"

I guess Roberts learned the oath in church.

Justice Stevens (Northwestern '47) continues to outshine Roberts. ;)

Actually, the question could also be put: "How many former Harvard law students who took Larry Tribe for con law does it take to administer the Presidential oath properly?"

I've heard Tribe's bragged about having had both Roberts and Obama as students. I heard that before the election Tribe even said his "fantasy" was to see one of his students, Chief Justice Roberts, swear in another of his students, Obama, as president (can someone please find and link to that?).

Well, now we know the results of Tribe's teaching!

(In Roberts' defense, I read somewhere that when Roberts took the course, Tribe didn't assign a casebook; he just assigned his own "treatise," which I guess wouldn't actually tell you much about constitutional law! I'll try to find and post that.)

Apart from their mutual disadvantage of having had Tribe teach them constitutional law, I suppose it's not surprising that Roberts and Obama couldn't get the constitutional text right,as they both got subpar grades from Larry Tribe. Tribe publicly outed Roberts a few years ago as being just an A- student, and Obama carped about it during law school:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1493875/posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVt2dH7d69k

http://volokh.com/posts/1217534721.shtml#408513

Obama requested that the Chief Justice add it to the oath NTB24601. At least that is what the link says.

Dawnsblood:

Obama requested that the Chief Justice add it to the oath NTB24601. At least that is what the link says.

Good to know. Thanks for the info. I guess that's why no one is talking about it. =)

and I never took the Harvard Law Review competition

Interesting, given your subsequent career. Why not?

President Obama's oath at the inauguration did not fulfill the requirement of Article 1, Section 1, which states:

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.’’

This is the only part of the Constitution that is specifically quoted.

By contrast, in other parts of the Constitution where Oaths are required, no quotation marks are used. For example, Article IV, clause 2 (the Oath clause) states only the substance, not the exact wording, of the Oath required of legislators, judges, and Executive Officers:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

Comparing the wording of the Oath required of the President and that required by legislators and officers, it is clear that only in the former case are the exact words required. Were exact words not required, after all, quotation marks would not have been used.

In repeating the oath, the President moved the position of the word faithfully from the Constitutional text. This is a critical word: he did not faithfully recited the oath, so he did not faithfully fulfill the requirements of Article 2, Section 1.

Even if President Obama did not take the oath correctly privately, mooting this post, there is no legal justification I am aware of for the suggestion that he is "not President" just because he did not fulfill a particular constitutional duty. I doubt there is any remedy either, except perhaps to bring a writ of mandamus. (The problem with a writ is that I do not see who would have standing to bring it).

Has any President ever given that quote, exactly as presented?

I mean, they usually insert their name between "I" and "do solemnly swear." Which ain't the Constitution, bub!

I want to add one comment to my earlier post in which I pointed out that the Oath must be given as in the Constitution to have effect:

President Obama's Oath is not just different in wording from the Constitution's Oath - it's also likely different in meaning.

Obama's Oath stated:

I will execute the Office of President of the United Sates faithfully

But the Constitution's Oath stated:

I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United Sates

There are two key differences in meaning:

(A) Obama's Oath subtly deprecates the importance of the word "faithfully" compared to the Constitution's Oath. In the Constitution, the word "faithfully" comes first, where it connotes a greater level of emphasis than it does in Obama's Oath, where it comes at the end of the clause (and in the middle of the whole Oath, rather than at the start). In the Constitution's Oath, faithfulness is paramount; in Obama's Oath, execution is paramount.

(B) The Constitution's Oath directly alludes to the Take Care Clause, requiring that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama's Oath removes that direct allusion because it does not exactly quote the Take Care clause.

To recapitulate my conclusions in this post and the prior one:

(1) Obama is indeed President;

(2) Obama's Oath does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement of Article 2, Section 1;

(4) Obama's Oath connotes something different from the Constitution's Oath.

There are two salient questions I do not know the answer to, however.

First, can Obama constitutionally exercise Presidential powers without taking the Constitution's Oath? Second, does any citizen have standing to move for a writ of mandamus forcing Obama to take the Constitution's Oath?

The combination of Roberts, Obama, and the Fox automated-transcription system produced a better oath of office:

I. — Barack Hussein Obama I solemnly swear Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear. That I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully — execute. Get off faithfully the president the office of president and — I just — the United States — wheels. — the best of — ability and will miss my children. Preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States so help you got so homey.

I'm not a lawyer, just a Unitarian and Secular Atheist, but I'd never swear an oath without adding, "So help me God." So if I fail to fulfill the oath in large or in small, it ain't my fault but a non-existent God's. PS: BBC announced that Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath to the President in the White House--better late than never.