John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, and Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible.
Wait, so you get to choose what you want to swear on? I guess that makes sense now that I think about separation of church and state, but I wonder why there aren't more who have chosen something else to swear upon.
John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, and Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible.
Wait, so you get to choose what you want to swear on? I guess that makes sense now that I think about separation of church and state, but I wonder why there aren't more who have chosen something else to swear upon.
The inaugural oath is not even required by law; the ceremony is entirely... um... ceremonial. Its composition is entirely open to modification.
More haven't chosen to swear on anything other than a bible so as to not alienate their rabid, mouth-breathing base.
The inaugural oath is not even required by law; the ceremony is entirely... um... ceremonial. Its composition is entirely open to modification.
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."
You are correct Joe, but I was not referring to the oath itself, though I erroneously wrote it that way. I was talking more about the entire hullabaloo surrounding it. The inauguration doesn't have to be public, doesn't have to be a party, doesn't have to be anything more than the following sentence: 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." That's (generously) about 15 seconds. Everything else is just bullshit. There is no bible. There is no mandatory "so help me god" and there are no prayers. John Adams didn't even do it on the 20th. Except the sentence, nothing else is set in stone or even necessary.
Hee hee. I have always wondered what the judge would say if I asked to be sworn into court on a copy of Canterbury Tales. After all, it's a collection of stories, just like the Bible...and it holds just about the same significance to me.
This is a common complaint made by the public, especially from members of the losing party, to make our re-elected President seem like a selfish fool (something he is most certainly not). In actuality, the entire inauguration, including all of the fireworks, parades, parties, and events are paid for by donors. Not one cent of tax payer money goes to paying for the events, and in this inauguration the only tax payer money even being used is D.C.'s homeland security money to cover the increased security measures (something the city would be responsible for anyways). So efforts like Alternet's "Not One Damn Dime" are fruitless, mislead attempts to make a point that is already moot.
Sadly that amount of money is looking to be well over $100 million. Before some of you accuse me of criticizing Obama I'd also like to point out that in 2005 the government (that's us taxpayers) footed about $115 million to pay for security.
You can't legitimately make the argument that the taxpayer does not pay for (part of) the inauguration when they have to pay for the security and cleanup of the event. If these added expenses are part of the event then they should be paid for out of the inauguration budget. If these expenses include money that would be spent anyways (not extra spending) then those normal expenses should be deducted and not charged or included in the final bill.
Example: Washington DC has a police dispatch office with 10 full time dispatchers. Because these people work this job regardless of what events are going on in the district the cost of them being on the job should not be considered an inauguration expense. However, if the district brings in 10 off-duty dispatchers to cover the event then their pay should be part of the inauguration expense.
Sadly that amount of money is looking to be well over $100 million. Before some of you accuse me of criticizing Obama I'd also like to point out that in 2005 the government (that's us taxpayers) footed about $115 million to pay for security.
Sounds to me like Obama is going to save us $15 million. Thanks, Obama!
Sadly that amount of money is looking to be well over $100 million. Before some of you accuse me of criticizing Obama I'd also like to point out that in 2005 the government (that's us taxpayers) footed about $115 million to pay for security.
You can't legitimately make the argument that the taxpayer does not pay for (part of) the inauguration when they have to pay for the security and cleanup of the event. If these added expenses are part of the event then they should be paid for out of the inauguration budget. If these expenses include money that would be spent anyways (not extra spending) then those normal expenses should be deducted and not charged or included in the final bill.
Example: Washington DC has a police dispatch office with 10 full time dispatchers. Because these people work this job regardless of what events are going on in the district the cost of them being on the job should not be considered an inauguration expense. However, if the district brings in 10 off-duty dispatchers to cover the event then their pay should be part of the inauguration expense.
Given that we're paying for this regardless of who won, does anyone actually care?
You know, I think people are overlooking the benefit of the ceremony. Morale is a big factor in the economy. A grand Inauguration, which will be watched by much of the country, is probably worth the tax money we spend on additional security. They could send every American $0.30, or they could spend the money on making a spectacle that will have a positive affect on the country's morale.
You know, I think people are overlooking the benefit of the ceremony. Morale is a big factor in the economy. A grand Inauguration, which will be watched by much of the country, is probably worth the tax money we spend on additional security. They could send every American $0.30, or they could spend the money on making a spectacle that will have a positive affect on the country's morale.
Especially when such a large portion of the country decided he would be our president.
Especially when such a large portion of the country decided he would be our president.
That's true. People love Obama and they are very happy to see him take office. Also, people hate Bush and they are very happy to see him leave. That makes it worth celebrating.
You know, I think people are overlooking the benefit of the ceremony. Morale is a big factor in the economy. A grand Inauguration, which will be watched by much of the country, is probably worth the tax money we spend on additional security. They could send every American $0.30, or they could spend the money on making a spectacle that will have a positive affect on the country's morale.
Funny, I don't recall that sentiment being raised in 2005. I remember the exact opposite sentiment complete with articles on how many armored HUMVEEs (among other things) that could be purchased with the money being spent.
To take your idea a little further why not have the celebration last all year? Surely if a couple days of celebration is such a great thing for the nation then why not a couple of weeks or months?
I'm not against the celebration taking place, spend all the donated money there is and have a great time! I am against the added expense being imposed on the taxpayer to pay for the security. Some people on this forum are unable to understand that point of view and instead choose to see this as a criticism of Obama, which it is not.
You know, I think people are overlooking the benefit of the ceremony. Morale is a big factor in the economy. A grand Inauguration, which will be watched by much of the country, is probably worth the tax money we spend on additional security. They could send every American $0.30, or they could spend the money on making a spectacle that will have a positive affect on the country's morale.
Funny, I don't recall that sentiment being raised in 2005. I remember the exact opposite sentiment complete with articles on how many armored HUMVEEs (among other things) that could be purchased with the money being spent.
To take your idea a little further why not have the celebration last all year? Surely if a couple days of celebration is such a great thing for the nation then why not a couple of weeks or months?
I'm not against the celebration taking place, spend all the donated money there is and have a great time! I am against the added expense being imposed on the taxpayer to pay for the security. Some people on this forum are unable to understand that point of view and instead choose to see this as a criticism of Obama, which it is not.
To take your idea a little further why not have the celebration last all year? Surely if a couple days of celebration is such a great thing for the nation then why not a couple of weeks or months?
That's funny I was thinking that it might be a good stimulus package to just have a year long party that everyone is invited to as long as it's all American made ;-p Go down hedonistic style for the win!
considering theFirst Postwas made on Nov 5, 2005 i find it highly unlikely to have been discussed on here at all when it was going on.
Then why are you coming at the forum with an accusatory tone? No one here bitched about the party (that I know of), they just bitched about the dumb-ass, election stealing President. Him having a party was the least of my concerns, quite frankly.
considering theFirst Postwas made on Nov 5, 2005 i find it highly unlikely to have been discussed on here at all when it was going on.
Then why are you coming at the forum with an accusatory tone?
Watch for this to happen more and more often. They'll say, "I don't want to criticize Obama , but . . ."
I'm also noticing that they're trying to criticize him for not doing what they think the most far left people want him to do. He won't be able to brush his teeth in the morning without some conservative criticizing him for it.
considering theFirst Postwas made on Nov 5, 2005 i find it highly unlikely to have been discussed on here at all when it was going on.
Then why are you coming at the forum with an accusatory tone? No one here bitched about the party (that I know of), they just bitched about the dumb-ass, election stealing President. Him having a party was the least of my concerns, quite frankly.
Let me reiterate:
I'm not against the celebration taking place, spend all the donated money there is and have a great time! I am against the added expense being imposed on the taxpayer to pay for the security. Some people on this forum are unable to understand that point of view and instead choose to see this as a criticism of Obama, which it is not.
Can you please point out where I am coming at the forum with an accusatory tone. I thought I was having a discussion in a forum.
No, you wouldn't make pointless criticisms of Obama, would you Mr. "Obama is not a natural citizen"?
Thank you Mr. Ad Hominem. I knew you could not go no more than a few posts without one.
You know, I think people are overlooking the benefit of the ceremony. Morale is a big factor in the economy. A grand Inauguration, which will be watched by much of the country, is probably worth the tax money we spend on additional security. They could send every American $0.30, or they could spend the money on making a spectacle that will have a positive affect on the country's morale.
Funny, I don't recall that sentiment being raised in 2005.
That's because that particular inaugural was more like a wake than a celebration of hope.
Even though he got more votes?
Especially when such a large portion of the country decided he would be our president.
That's true. People love Obama and they are very happy to see him take office. Also, people hate Bush and they are very happy to see him leave. That makes it worth celebrating.
Seems like you have no problem in agreeing that a President who is elected by a majority of voters is a cause to celebrate. Or does that only apply when the President belongs to the Democratic party?
No, you wouldn't make pointless criticisms of Obama, would you Mr. "Obama is not a natural citizen"?
Thank you Mr. Ad Hominem. I knew you could not go no more than a few posts without one.
Steve, I know that you want to parrot the people who throw around the term "ad hominem" so that you can look smart. The problem is, the statement I just made is not an ad hominem. It is a referral back to an argument that you made and tried very hard to defend. It is a specific example of how you have pointlessly criticized Obama. It is not a personal attack in any way.
You know, I think people are overlooking the benefit of the ceremony. Morale is a big factor in the economy. A grand Inauguration, which will be watched by much of the country, is probably worth the tax money we spend on additional security. They could send every American $0.30, or they could spend the money on making a spectacle that will have a positive affect on the country's morale.
Funny, I don't recall that sentiment being raised in 2005.
That's because that particular inaugural was more like a wake than a celebration of hope.
Even though he got more votes?
Especially when such a large portion of the country decided he would be our president.
That's true. People love Obama and they are very happy to see him take office. Also, people hate Bush and they are very happy to see him leave. That makes it worth celebrating.
Seems like you have no problem in agreeing that a President who is elected by a majority of voters is a cause to celebrate. Or does that only apply when the President belongs to the Democratic party?
1. Reasonable people have questioned whether GWB actually did get more votes. 2. Obama got so many more votes that no one can argue. I was there for his speech in Baltimore. I was briefly there on the mall for the concert yesterday. It is unbelievable how many people love Obama and how much they love him. This inaugural is a cause to celebrate for many more reasons than someone won an election. It's a celebration of hope over fear, the future over the past, reason over hate, and so on.
Deal with it. He is the President. He is the Commander in Chief.
1. Reasonable people have questioned whether GWB actually did get more votes.
You're not referring to the "exit polling says Kerry won" conspiracy, are you???
2. Obama got so many more votes that no one can argue. I was there for his speech in Baltimore. I was briefly there on the mall yesterday. It is unbelievable how many people love Obama. This inaugural is a cause to celebrate for many more reasons than someone won an election. It's a celebration of hope over fear, the future over the past, reason over hate, and so on.
Style over substance... Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all already. Now get back on target.
Deal with it. He is the President. He is the Commander in Chief.
Which has no bearing on my desire to see the taxpayer not have to foot the bill for the security and cleanup work involved with an inauguration.
You want to have a big party? Go nuts. Spend all the money you want as long as none of it is taxpayer money.
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
You want to have a big party? Go nuts. Spend all the money you want as long as none of it is taxpayer money.
Yeah, there's probably gonna be some taxpayer money spent. I think there's a lot of yours in particular that will be spent. It doesn't even begin to make up for all of my taxpayer money that was spent on Iraq.
2. Obama got so many more votes that no one can argue. I was there for his speech in Baltimore. I was briefly there on the mall yesterday. It is unbelievable how many people love Obama. This inaugural is a cause to celebrate for many more reasons than someone won an election. It's a celebration of hope over fear, the future over the past, reason over hate, and so on.
Style over substance... Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all already. Now get back on target.
Umm . . . that was exactly on target. People are happy that GWB is gone and Obama is here. That's why there will be a celebration. That's why people are spending money. That's why no one cares if there's any taxpayer money spent.
BTW, some people are making a lot of money from this. It's hard to believe until you actually see it for yourself how much Obama merchandise is changing hands. They're even selling Obama bottled water.
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
Well, let me check. Oh, here it is. That's a pretty final resolution.
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
Well, let me check. Oh, here it is. That's a pretty final resolution.
Really? A final resolution? I don't see it. The issue was never resolved. The question was never answered. Unless you define resolve as "cert not granted". I don't.
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
Really? A final resolution? I don't see it. The issue was never resolved. The question was never answered. Unless you define resolve as "cert not granted". I don't.
Resolve
Steve, this person applied for an injuction. It was not granted. Injunction not granted = resolved.
"Can I has injunction?" "No."
That's a final resolution by any definition.
Legally, cert not granted is a resolution as well as it means that the ruling of the lower court stands. How did those lower courts rule again? Oh yeah, they ruled that your people didn't have standing to bring suit. Once again, resolved.
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
Well, let me check. Oh,here it is.That's a pretty final resolution.
Really? A final resolution? I don't see it. The issue was never resolved. The question was never answered. Unless you define resolve as "cert not granted". I don't.
Resolve
Steve, this person applied for an injuction. It was not granted. Injunction not granted = resolved.
Legally, cert not granted is a resolution as well as it means that the ruling of the lower court stands. How did those lower courts rule again? Oh yeah, they ruled that your people didn't have standing to bring suit. Once again, resolved.
So you agree that the question was never answered then?
So you agree that the question was never answered then?
It was answered. In the negative. It's done. Resolved. /discussion.
Then please provide a link to where the question was answered.
If I ask you, "Hey Joe, what kind of car do you drive" and you respond, "I'm not going to answer that question if you ask it" then the question has not been answered.
No offense, Joe, but a first year law student could spot the flaw in your argument.
The case was dismissed for lack of standing. There was no ruling on the substantive claim.
To argue that there was is legally indefensible.
I don't subscribe to the claim. But I'm also not going to read more into a dismissal than there is.
You could make an argument that the inability of anyone to successfully claim standing has functionally resolved the issue. This, however, is not the same as the underlying issue itself being resolved.
Comments
More haven't chosen to swear on anything other than a bible so as to not alienate their rabid, mouth-breathing base.
On another note...Yay Inauguration!!
You can't legitimately make the argument that the taxpayer does not pay for (part of) the inauguration when they have to pay for the security and cleanup of the event. If these added expenses are part of the event then they should be paid for out of the inauguration budget. If these expenses include money that would be spent anyways (not extra spending) then those normal expenses should be deducted and not charged or included in the final bill.
Example: Washington DC has a police dispatch office with 10 full time dispatchers. Because these people work this job regardless of what events are going on in the district the cost of them being on the job should not be considered an inauguration expense. However, if the district brings in 10 off-duty dispatchers to cover the event then their pay should be part of the inauguration expense.
To take your idea a little further why not have the celebration last all year? Surely if a couple days of celebration is such a great thing for the nation then why not a couple of weeks or months?
I'm not against the celebration taking place, spend all the donated money there is and have a great time! I am against the added expense being imposed on the taxpayer to pay for the security. Some people on this forum are unable to understand that point of view and instead choose to see this as a criticism of Obama, which it is not.
I'm also noticing that they're trying to criticize him for not doing what they think the most far left people want him to do. He won't be able to brush his teeth in the morning without some conservative criticizing him for it.
2. Obama got so many more votes that no one can argue. I was there for his speech in Baltimore. I was briefly there on the mall for the concert yesterday. It is unbelievable how many people love Obama and how much they love him. This inaugural is a cause to celebrate for many more reasons than someone won an election. It's a celebration of hope over fear, the future over the past, reason over hate, and so on.
Deal with it. He is the President. He is the Commander in Chief.
You want to have a big party? Go nuts. Spend all the money you want as long as none of it is taxpayer money.
As for the Natural Born issue, it was never resolved. Unless you have a SCOTUS ruling hidden somewhere in your briefs?
BTW, some people are making a lot of money from this. It's hard to believe until you actually see it for yourself how much Obama merchandise is changing hands. They're even selling Obama bottled water. Well, let me check. Oh, here it is. That's a pretty final resolution.
Resolve
"Can I has injunction?"
"No."
That's a final resolution by any definition.
Legally, cert not granted is a resolution as well as it means that the ruling of the lower court stands. How did those lower courts rule again? Oh yeah, they ruled that your people didn't have standing to bring suit. Once again, resolved.
If I ask you, "Hey Joe, what kind of car do you drive" and you respond, "I'm not going to answer that question if you ask it" then the question has not been answered.
The case was dismissed for lack of standing. There was no ruling on the substantive claim.
To argue that there was is legally indefensible.
I don't subscribe to the claim. But I'm also not going to read more into a dismissal than there is.
You could make an argument that the inability of anyone to successfully claim standing has functionally resolved the issue. This, however, is not the same as the underlying issue itself being resolved.