• Home
  • News
  • Did Roberts’ Oath Change Cause Obama Stumble?

U.S. Supreme Court

Did Roberts’ Oath Change Cause Obama Stumble?

Posted Jan 20, 2009 11:49 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Updated: President Barack Obama hesitated as he took the oath of office today.

According to an Associated Press account, Obama paused as he was repeating the 35-word oath administered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “Roberts helped him over the brief awkward moment, repeating a few words to get Obama back on track,” AP says.

But in its live coverage after the inauguration ceremony, Diane Sawyer of ABC News said Roberts had slightly changed the order of the oath’s words, prompting the hesitation by Obama.

NBC News agrees with its competing network. "Chief Justice John Roberts, using no notes, flubbed his lines, and Obama knew it," its story says.

The oath is supposed to read: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Instead, Roberts said the words: "that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully," putting "faithfully" at the end of the phrase, and substituting the word "to" for "of."

Obama may have contributed to the confusion by jumping in too soon, starting to repeat the oath before Roberts completed the first phrase, the New York Times reports at its Caucus blog.

One blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy, University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, noted Roberts' change of wording and asked: "A portent of an unusually uneasy relationship between the new administration and the federal judiciary?"

ABC News published the full text of Obama’s address.

More details from Tony Mauro of Legal Times, "Who flubbed the presidential oath?"

As ABAJournal.com reports in a subsequent blog post, Obama did in fact take the oath of office a second time, at the White House, the day after his inauguration.

Updated at 2 p.m. CT to include a link to Legal Times account and updated at 8 p.m. on Jan. 21 to include link to subsequent ABAJournal.com post.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Jan 20, 2009 1:08 PM CST

So if he didn’t say the exact words as required by the Constitution, is Obama actually president?

And what about the Supreme Court conference on the most recent Obama citizenship case scheduled for this Friday, the 23d?

Flag this comment

2.

Brett
Jan 20, 2009 1:09 PM CST

It’s good to see that Roberts screws up both orally and in his decisions.

Flag this comment

3.

Brian
Jan 20, 2009 1:51 PM CST

Of course the messiah Barry couldn’t mess up! It HAS to be Roberts’ fault!

Flag this comment

4.

B. J.
Jan 20, 2009 4:11 PM CST

It was disappointing that Roberts stated the oath incorrectly; however, it is comforting to know that President Obama had a keen awareness to his mistakes. In spite of the stumble, this mark in history will always be respectfully remembered.

Flag this comment

5.

AK
Jan 20, 2009 8:11 PM CST

At the luncheon, ABC showed Obama share a laugh with Roberts about the mishap, and you could read Robert’s lips as he said “It was my fault.”

Flag this comment

6.

Beca
Jan 21, 2009 3:45 AM CST

Clearly Justice Roberts lacked the respect for the office of the President of the United States, since he decided to give the oath of office unprepared! It was clearly Justice Roberts fault for mixing the words around in the oath, you don’t do that on something like this. President Obama clearly knew what the exact words to the oath of office are, and that is why he stopped when he noticed Justice Robert’s flip on the words. Either Justice Roberts just wanted to show his disdain for President Obama, or he was just unprepared, which also shows a total disregard for the office of the President of the United States..either way, he is caca for doing that.

Flag this comment

7.

Beca
Jan 21, 2009 3:53 AM CST

j.d., perhaps you might want to think a bit about a few small facts. In order to obtain a U.S. passport, one must submit original birth documents and other documents to the state department. Obama has had his U.S. passport since he was a child.
In order to be able to old public office, one must show proof of birth, etc. via original document. Obama was an Ill Senator. In order to be a U.S. Senator, one must submit to an FBI and national security check that is very thorough and stringent. One must submit all original birht and other family documents and a thorough background check, going back to generations in your family. Plus a U.S. Senator also needs to be a U.S. citizen.  Obviously, Obama passed all the required security and qualifications checks since he did have the required security clearance to be a U.S. Senator.  Prior to becoming a Presidential candidatge, he and the rest, had to submit original documents showing proof of identity, birth, etc,. Once elected, he had to then submit to another more stringent national security and FBI clearance check that would clear him to be privy to all the top national security secrets of our country. Clearly he passed that with flying colors as well.
So, your fantasy that President Obama was not born here in the U.S. is bunk and just a stupid fantasy of yours. Face it, President Obama is indeed your President now! so deal with it!

Flag this comment

8.

Colleen
Jan 21, 2009 8:41 AM CST

Roberts did not make a mistake. 

Roberts purposefully tried to disrupt the oath.

What Roberts did not want ...was a clearly stated oath where Obama used his full name with Hussein in the middle…that would go out onto the internet and around the world.

And AP news is no longer a reliable news source. They are filtering the news to oppose Obama
(the $150 million for the inauguration. included also the security )

No matter…Obama would have become president at noon no matter what Roberts was up to. By law Obama is president with or without the oath at noon Jan 20,2009.

The American people have finally spoken and elected Obama..

but the right wing is still there and causing trouble ..in their own devious and undemocratic way.

The right wants Obama to fail so that they can again control American policies..

Flag this comment

9.

J.D.
Jan 21, 2009 9:46 AM CST

Condolezza Rice was our FIRST African-American president. At least that’s what one law professor is saying:

“Art. II Sec 1. Cl. 8 of the US Const. clearly states that ‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following oath…’ Therefore, from 12:00 noon until about 12:01 pm today, the President of the USA was Condoleeza Rice. From 12:01 until about 12:03 pm the President of the USA was Joe Biden. Interestingly, this means that, technically, Obama was *not* the first African-American President!”

Here’s his explanation:

(1) The 20th Amendment provides that “[t]he terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January. . . . ”

(2) Art II., Sec. 1 Cl. 8 provides that “efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, [The President] shall take the following oath. . . ”

(3) President Obama did not take the Oath of Office until about 12:03 pm today, after Vice President Biden took it at about 12:01 p.m. (Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman were still fiddling at noon).

(4) Therefore, there was a brief window (just after noon) when George Bush and Dick Cheney were no longer President and Vice President, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden also were not yet qualified to enter on the Execution of their offices.

(5) The Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. sec. 19(a)(1), provides: “If, by reason of . . . failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.” Section 19(b) states that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall act as President (under the same terms and conditions) if the Speaker of the House fails to qualify.

(6) Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Robert Byrd actually resigned their seats in the Congress. Thus, neither of them qualified to become Acting President under the Presidential Succession Act. Plus, interbranch appointments might be unconstitutional anyhow. See Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113 (1995); but see Howard Wasserman, Structural Principles and Presidential Succession, 90 Ky. L.J. 345 (2002).

(7) Section 19(d)(1) of the Presidential Succession Act provides: “If, by reason of . . . failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State . . . ”

(8) Notably, Section 19(d)(1) does not condition the Secretary of State’s assumption of the powers and duties of the office of President on resignation of her current office, nor does elevation of the Secretary of State raise any constitutional issue of interbranch appointment.

(9) The term of office of the Secretary of State does not automatically terminate at noon on the 20th day of January.

(10) On January 20, 2009, Condoleeza Rice was (and is) still the Secretary of State.

(11) Accordingly, from 12:00 noon until 12:01 p.m. (when Vice President Biden took the oath of office and became Vice President), Condoleeza Rice was momentarily the Acting President of the United States, our first African-American President.

I suppose the obvious counterargument is that Secretary Rice *also* never took the Oath prescribed in Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8, and thus was no more qualified than Barack Obama or Joe Biden to act as President at 12:00 noon. But if Secretary Rice was not President from noon to 12:01, then who was?

–Ken Katkin
Professor of Law
Salmon P. Chase College of Law

Flag this comment

10.

Dana
Jan 21, 2009 10:07 AM CST

Oh please. It doesn’t surprise me that Obama couldn’t make a mistake.  Blame it on someone else as usual. 

I’m sure the right wing is in on this too. Maybe Obama can’t repeat words. I have heard him stumble multiple times in speeches.

Flag this comment

11.

Heidi O
Jan 21, 2009 10:49 AM CST

JD: so the duly elected candidate for president must take the oath of office before acting as such but the secretary of state need not?  That’s creative.

Flag this comment

12.

J.D.
Jan 21, 2009 10:52 AM CST

It’s not my theory; I’m just throwing it out there for discussion. But look at the last paragraph:

“I suppose the obvious counterargument is that Secretary Rice *also* never took the Oath prescribed in Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8, and thus was no more qualified than Barack Obama or Joe Biden to act as President at 12:00 noon. But if Secretary Rice was not President from noon to 12:01, then who was?”

Flag this comment

13.

MattR
Jan 21, 2009 11:29 AM CST

JD - Why is there a hole in time from 12:00 to 12:01?  The twentieth ammendment says “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January… and the terms of their successors shall then begin”

So the successors’ terms begin precisely at noon when the previous terms end.

Flag this comment

14.

NativeNewYorker
Jan 21, 2009 12:48 PM CST

Condoleeza Rice?  No one voted for her.  One professor is entitled to their opinion, but there is more to being President than just taking an oath.  “Blame it someone else as usual.”  Roberts flubbed, admitted it and even joked about it. Dana and Brian, if you didn’t vote for Obama and/or just don’t like him, at least be constructive in your criticism, and avoid the childish whining.  Like Dubya was awake the past 8 years….

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.