Obama's first official act was…?

Trick Question: What was President Obama’s first official act, back in 2009? [Nobody’s going to answer this correctly!]

Clue:  Barack Obama’s first official act occurred immediately (as in one breath later) after taking the oath of office. Most people are amazed at this revelation, but quickly agree after reading the following analysis.

My contention:  Chief Justice Roberts violated the Constitution when he administered the oath of office to president-elect Barack Obama.

View this clip and tell me I'm wrong in my (following) analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ8QW5gy5zg

The blow by blow: A look at the scene of the crime

Senator Diane Feinstein addresses the multitude: "It is my distinct honor to present the Chief Justice of the United States, the Honorable John G. Roberts Jr, who will administer the presidential oath of office."

[Side bar: I think we can safely assume what follows is an administration of the presidential oath of office - and (as should be the case) nothing more.]

The Chief Justice asks, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?"

[Side bar: Notice that Roberts didn't ask, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator, and, in addition, be immediately subjected to a constitutionally-prohibited religious test?"]

Then Roberts starts his recitation of the oath, in words which Obama is supposed to repeat, by saying, "I Barack Hussein Obama…" Roberts, with a misstep or two, states the oath as it literally appears in the Constitution, using the words "I" (twice) and "my" (once).] Then he proceeds to violate our Constitution by asking, "So help you God???????" [I boldface the word “you” and add lots of question marks to underscore: A question was asked.]

[Side bar: Notice that Roberts shifted pronouns from the first person constitutional (as it were) to the second person unconstitutional (as it is).]

I'm calling Roberts on his shit (someone's got to)

When Senator Feinstein introduced Roberts, she said he was to administer the oath of office. Question: What right did Roberts have to follow up the oath by asking, "So help you God?"

Answer: Roberts had no right to do so, according to Article VI of the Constitution: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..." Sounds to me like Roberts was trying to squeeze in a religious test, even though that wasn't the purpose for which he was introduced that day. [If Obama had answered "no" to that question, then it could be argued he hadn't taken the "oath." Well, at least argued by pinheads within the GOP.]

Suppose Obama had looked Roberts square in the eye, in front of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and said, "Sir, you have no right to include such a question, making it appear to be part of the presidential oath of office. I ask you to retract that question." [And then, but only if he wished to do so, Obama could have added, "So help me God."]

Could you imagine our new chief executive publicly humiliating the Chief Justice in front of millions of people? [Hmm...might make an interesting scene in a movie.]

However, something occurred to me, especially since it was obvious that Roberts and Obama had not privately rehearsed the oath in advance so as to avoid any miscues. Did Roberts intend to embarrass Obama by adding this question (unbeknownst to the president-elect) after recitation of the oath?

Think about this: Obama might have paused for a moment thinking, "Wait a minute...that's not part of the oath, why is he asking me this question?" After that moment, he would have collected himself by thinking, "I've got to respond - and quickly - or the public will think I have a problem with saying, ‘So help me God.'"

Don't tell me "words don't matter"

Barack Obama gave a stirring defense of the importance of words during the campaign when he said, "Don't tell me ‘words don't matter.'" He made it quite obvious, he believes that words matter a great deal. So how could he tolerate being subjected to Roberts' religious test as the very first act of his presidency?

And, yes, it was his very first act as president because, once he had uttered the official oath, he was no longer "just" the president-elect. He was the president who could "enter on the Execution of his Office," as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

QUOTE:

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."

:UNQUOTE.

"Words don't matter after all" - the lawyers

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House Counsel Greg Craig said in a written statement. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

The White House Counsel should have just come out and said, "The Constitution isn't very specific on many issues, but on this it is: The requirement to take the oath by using the wording specified in that document. So it's obvious that the president-elect was not properly sworn in yesterday. That's why he will be taking the oath today."

This is no small matter. Barack Obama is like any other president who is surrounded by legal minds who are deft at circumventing the law. He's got to get rid of these people or else they're going to convince him (for instance) that it's okay to sign Executive Orders legalizing torture (though they won't call it that).

And, believe me, the lawyerly abuse of language won't stop there.

There's something funny about those Chief Justices

Consider Chief Justice William Howard Taft's bold assertion:

QUOTE:

In 1929, Chief Justice William Howard Taft garbled the oath when he swore in President Herbert Hoover using the words "preserve, maintain, and defend the Constitution", instead of "preserve, protect, and defend". The error was picked up by schoolgirl Helen Terwilliger on the radio. Taft eventually acknowledged his error, but did not think it was important, and Hoover did not retake the oath. In Taft's view, his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath.

:UNQUOTE [source: wikipedia**]

So Hoover did not retake the oath, eh? Any rationale person should rightfully conclude: Constitutionally-speaking, Hoover had no right to exercise any of his presidential powers.

However, we're not taking about rationality here, we're talking about the divine rights of kings - oops, I meant to say, the divine rights of Chief Justices. If Taft thought "his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath," then he was within his rights.

Then it follows, of course, that if Chief Justice Roberts saw fit to subject Barack Obama to a religious test, that was within his rights, too. And the Constitution be damned!

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"I can't be the only person on the planet who noticed Roberts' illegal religious test, can I?" - Steve.