There’s more than a little irony in the open speculation about the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s oath of office given the flubbed administration by the Chief Justice. At issue is the failure to strictly follow the Constitutionally prescribed presidential oath in Article 2, Section 1:
Before he (the President) 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.”
It is fascinating that the position of an adverb attracts more media visibility than do the ongoing legal challenges to the President’s basic eligibility to hold office. In the same Section of the same Article of the Costitution are these requirements:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Yet, unknown to most Americans is the fact that the same oath-administering Chief Justice will be conferencing with the Associate Justices just three days after the inauguration to consider a case that again challenges the President to prove his status as a “natural born Citizen.”
As reported on DRUDGE REPORT this evening:
At 735 pm, Roberts administred the oath of office again to obama in the map room. Robert gibbs said the wh counsel, greg craig, believes the oath was fine Tuesday, but one word was out of sequence so they did this out of a "an abundance of caution."
So it seems that Constitutional precision, literally to the letter, is of the utmost importance to assure the legitimacy of the Chief Executive.