Roberts went to the White House tonight (Wednesday) and administered the oath of office to Obama, this time he got it right.
Is this true? I thought that under law, Obama was actually president after the inaguration and oath. Why then would he do the oath a second time?
Edit as I found the article which confirms it.
**
“out of the abundance of caution”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gvwcUbiSH7YVjguRrvCCelkC2J-wD95RT32O1
.
NNNNOOOOO!!! It’s a trick! The godless heathens have forced him to retake the oath without a bible!!! He is not really the President. Disregard everything from this point on.
What’s funny is that some monkeyspank will be saying this on the news- same crowd as the “he’s not really a citizen” folks. Bozos!
I bet the lawsuit is already being drafted.
One reason for retaking the oath that the BBC was reporting was to knock out conspiracy theorists who might otherwise have claimed that Obama was never sworn in as President.
Smart move to do it a second time, in private, with no Bible. That will sure shut those conspiracy nut-jobs up!
I think it’s interesting that we all assumed that Obama stumbled over the oath, but he was really pausing to give Roberts a chance to correct himself.
I read somewhere that Obama became president at Noon whether the oath was read or not.
I think it’s a gray area, hence the redo. Article II, Sec. I of the Constition is very clear regarding what must be recited in the oath:
“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.”
Any deviation could raise a legitimate challenge.
I guess I should have been more clear. I watched the oath taking and knew right away that Roberts screwed up. My intention was to point out that Wednesday Roberts got it right, not Obama.
There are several aspects of this that I find hilarious. First, a notoriously language-deficient president (GWB) manages to get his nominee confirmed as Chief Justice. Then that same man, giving what will probably be the most public statement of his lifetime, manages to mangle the language of this well-known oath in a manner totally worthy of his nominator.
Then I’m imagining Obama’s thought processes at the time, wondering how this dude could manage to screw this up, and whether he should say the oath as it’s supposed to be, or whether he should merely repeat Roberts’s words, and whether people who don’t know the correct wording will figure then HE screwed up if he says it correctly.
Finally, I’m picturing Roberts in the hours before the re-do, practicing the statement hundreds of times in front of the mirror, taking extraordinary pains to put the adverb at the right place in the sentence this time! 
Here is what I think happened. Roberts begins just fine. Obama jumps in early stepping on Roberts’ lines. Roberts, because he does not have it written down, can not recover and messes up after Obama jumped in. Now Roberts is flustered and, again, because he does not have it written down, does not have the confidence to start over. Thus, while I think Obama started the screw up, Roberts must bear the blame for not being able to salvage the oath. His only job was to ensure the oath was said correctly. He was not prepared.
I think you have it exactly correct. In support of your interpretation, Pres. Obama said at the redo that “we are going to do it really slowly.” I sympathized with Roberts. Do you stop the whole thing and redo it at that instant or soldier on. He picked wrong, but there was no salvaging it.
This is not an SNL skit where you just keep going and ignore mistakes. Given his role and the Supreme Court’s presumed respect for the specific words of the Constitution, Roberts should have had the presence of mind to say – “my apologies Senator, why don’t we start over and get it exactly right?” It’s a little silly to be administering and swearing an oath to protect the Constitution while at the same time flubbing the constitutionally mandated words.
Apparently, Roberts is a stickler for old rules like not splitting infinitives. It’s interesting that his two versions changed the wording (first by moving the adverb to the end, second by just dropping the verb entirely!) in such ways as to adhere to his desire to not split the infinitive.
This is not an SNL skit where you just keep going and ignore mistakes. Given his role and the Supreme Court’s presumed respect for the specific words of the Constitution, Roberts should have had the presence of mind to say – “my apologies Senator, why don’t we start over and get it exactly right?” It’s a little silly to be administering and swearing an oath to protect the Constitution while at the same time flubbing the constitutionally mandated words.
Can you imagine if he did exactly as you suggested, and called him “Senator”? Double oops.
Apparently, Roberts is a stickler for old rules like not splitting infinitives.
Wow. I thought the same thing. Because it wasn’t written down, once he got off track, his brain just couldn’t do it. I wonder why he was so vain as to not have it written?
So is it or isn’t it part of the law that you have to have your hand on the bible? I’m guessing that it’s not and that it’s only tradition. SOoooooo who will be the first president to swear the oath without the bible?
~Matt