Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Supreme Dicta

Federal Judiciary

: Supreme Dicta

Dusting off the old blawg...

Sorry for the lapse in posting. Those of you who know me in real life understand why blogging has been on the back burner lately. But hopefully this is the first of many (regular) posts to come.

Q. How many former editors of the Harvard Law Review does it take to administer the presidential oath of office?

A. More than two.

It appears as though 1.8 million people yesterday did not actually see Obama get sworn in. Oops! From today's Washington Post:

The presidential oath of office is required of a new president before he can execute his powers, and the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.

Which is what makes the oath President Obama took yesterday so interesting. It might be that the more than 1 million spectators didn't actually witness Obama being sworn in.

Because of a noticeable gaffe by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Obama transposed the words. He should have said he will "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" but instead said he will "execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully."

Constitutional law experts agree that the flub is insignificant. Yet two previous presidents -- Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur -- repeated the oath privately because of similar issues.

Lawyers said Obama and his supporters need not be worried about the legitimacy of his presidency, but they also said a do-over couldn't hurt. Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that the oath is mandatory, that an incorrect recitation should be fixed and that he would be surprised if the oath had not already been re-administered.

God damned Republicans, is there nothing you can get right?!?

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on January 21, 2009 (boomark / email).