Inauguration Day in the Land of Differences

Inauguration Day, January 20, 2013, will be very different, if I am elected as your next President:

The first difference:

It will not be held in Washington, D.C. It will be held in the exact geographic center of the lower-48 states, which is near Lebanon, Kansas, symbolic heartland of the United States. I thought long and hard about how to compensate Alaska and Hawaii, since they’re excluded in this determination of “exact geographic center.” I will offer my first two State of the Union addresses on their soil. 

The second difference:

Who will swear me in? The United States itself will. Picture this: A sculpture of an extended arm appearing to have risen from the earth (made from the soil of the heartland itself), made the same way children create sandcastles at the beach, which will have a holy book in its open palm.

The third difference:

This holy book will be a Buddhist “Bible,” not a Christian one. When Presidents are sworn in, they don’t have to use any kind of holy book. I will, though; choosing that text which is my holy book: The Lotus Sutra, as translated into English by Burton Watson. I, as a practicing Buddhist, recite from this at least 30 minutes per day.

The fourth difference:

I will not conclude my oath of office with, “so help me God.” Instead, I will conclude with, “...so help me. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.” N-M-R-K is a basic Buddhist prayer and vow, which I chant on a daily basis, meaning: “I devote myself to the Mystic Law of the Cause and Effect Teaching.” This will serve to remind me that all Presidents must be mindful of the causes they put out, since karmic effects are inevitable and liars are always punished (I’m thinking of you, George). As are false prophets of “change you can believe in” (I’m thinking of you, Barack).

The fifth difference:

There will be no stage with honored guests and dignitaries seated above everybody else. Think of a circle, with that arm I’d mentioned earlier being in the center. That circle would consist of me and 12 randomly-chosen citizens joining hands and facing that arm; we 13 symbolizing a new beginning for this country, much the same way the original 13 colonies symbolized a new beginning over two centuries ago. Outside this circle will be all guests (everybody’s invited), without any special arrangements made for so-called VIP’s (in my eyes, everybody is a VIP).

This would mean no special consideration or space allotted for the media (sweet!).

On Second Thought…

I had posted this “Land of Differences” piece (above) in pretty much the form you’re reading now – back when I was a candidate during the 2008 cycle. [This was on a now-defunct forum called Gaia, but I had also published in a local college newspaper.] Back then, I kept waiting for someone to object, to say “yeah, but…” For instance:

- Lebanon is so far away – being in the middle of nowhere*, it would be a long trek. [*Humorous aside: I am not calling the US “nowhere.”]

 - Lebanon can get awfully cold in the middle of January and doesn’t have the advantage of ample warm-up places for a massive crowd of visitors.

 - Maybe the Inauguration should be held in the geographic center of (all 50) United States, which is near the town of Belle Fourche in South Dakota. [Not only is that even more isolated than Lebanon, Kansas, I’m sure a lot of French-hating jingoists would have a problem with the name: Belle Fourche is French for “beautiful fork” which, by the way, isn’t referring to a dining utensil.]

 - Maybe the Inauguration should be held in the “population center” of the United States, as opposed to the “geographic center.”

All of these are good points. However, I’ll stick with my original choice of Lebanon. Mostly for sentimental reasons, though another pops sheepishly into mind: It never occurred to me that a 50-state center was calculable; and the “population center” option (frankly) occurred to me just now. Oh, well.

I didn’t overlook more practical considerations, though. I thought of the impact a huge crowd might have on the (admittedly few) residents of Lebanon. Not to mention, how to provide a way for this crowd to warm up after standing in the cold for any appreciable length of time. In answer to these issues:

- Provide warming tents and personal, battery-operated heaters (for rent), based on donations I would seek in advance.

 - “Suggest” to the Kansas state government: “Pass some kind of crowd control legislation, with proper enforcement, to limit the size of the crowd that could descend upon Lebanon.”

 - Charge some kind of clean-up fee to attendants, so as not to leave this small town trampled and littered by the festivities.

Sudden Brainstorm

As I said, I had written most of “Land of Differences” years ago. However, while updating this, I thought of two interesting twists. The participants would be chosen by lottery in advance for these post swearing-in activities:

- I would like to host several limited-size groups for informal chat sessions.

 - I would also like 100 citizens (one at a time) to “administer” the oath of office to me. Each would have a card from which to feed me the oath, a few phrases at a time, and I would sign that card for them as a keepsake.

As an added bonus, if any one of those 100 would like me to add “…so help me God” to the oath, I would do so. I would also be agreeable to placing my hand on a Bible or a Quran (“…so help me Allah”) or almost any type of holy book. I could even conclude with “…so help me ______,” filling in the blank with the name of whomever is swearing me in.

I would not, however, conclude with “…so help me Prince of Darkness,” since 99% of my fellow citizens would freak out. And that would be the only reason.

I would not personally have any problem swearing such an oath, since I would be addressing the Buddha-nature of the Prince and not his dark side. For the record, I am aware that “pundits” like Rush Limbaugh et al will mercilessly rake me over the coals for this. But I went ahead and said it anyway…which shows how little I think of, or fear, Rush.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I fancy that such an Inauguration Day could well be the grand beginning to a whole new way of doing business” – Steve.

Obama’s first official act was…?

Trick Question: What was President Obama’s first official act? [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.