Humm must be Ronnie was a secret Muslim too?

Obama Isn't the First President to Retake Oath -- or Forgo Bible

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009; Page A03

President Obama's awkward swearing-in ceremony and subsequent do-over of the oath of office drew a great deal of attention, but the double-dip does not make him unique in American history. Nor is he the first president to take the oath without a Bible, as occurred during his second swearing-in ceremony Wednesday night.

According to records compiled by the Architect of the Capitol and maintained by the Library of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible at his 1901 swearing-in.

And in 1963, when Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on Air Force One at Love Field airport in Dallas after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he used a Roman Catholic missal, a liturgical text.

"I had given this Bible or missal to the judge on Air Force One, which I had taken off the side table in the president's bedroom in Air Force One," Democratic strategist Lawrence F. O'Brien, a Kennedy aide, recalled in an oral history interview with Johnson's presidential library in 1986. It turned out not to be a Bible, though it was "a book with a cross on the cover, leather-bound" and new.

The use of the Bible at presidential swearings-in is a matter of tradition rather than law, according to experts.

"That tradition just was begun by George Washington and has been pursued ever since, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a Bible," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School and an informal adviser to Obama.

The oath itself, however, is the only oath whose exact terms are specified in the Constitution. But Tribe noted that when it has been misstated and not corrected, nothing happens, as the presidency automatically transfers to the elected successor upon the departure of the previous president from the White House.

Obama is the seventh president to have restated his oath of office. Four -- Rutherford B. Hayes, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan in 1985 -- restated their oaths publicly because in those years Jan. 20 fell on a Sunday, meaning only private ceremonies were held on those Inauguration Days.

Chester Arthur took the oath for the first time at his home in New York in the wee hours of Sept. 20, 1881, following the death of James Garfield, who had been wounded by an assassin's bullet in July. He restated the oath at the U.S. Capitol two days later.

Calvin Coolidge's repetition of the oath followed a similar course. He took it for the first time at 2:47 a.m. on Aug. 3, 1923, while visiting his native Vermont, after being roused from sleep following the death of Warren Harding. Coolidge had a Bible on a nearby table while taking the oath but did not lay his hand on it, "as it is not the practice in Vermont or Massachusetts to use a Bible in connection with the administration of an oath," he said.

Questions were later raised about the propriety of his being sworn in by his father, a notary public, leading a federal judge to readminister the oath.

Nice of Historical Info Lynann.
Thank You.

Sadly, this will not lay the issue to rest

I am sure it won't.

The folks that chew this bone are still obsessing about Bill receiving oral gratification all these years later.

Yeah, like most of them wouldn't have done the same thing in that position

those that keep defending him for keep forgeting that it is not that it happened that is the issue

the issue is that he lied under oath about it (that is a crime; perjury) and if it was one of us we would be in jail

Generally speaking, they don't throw you in jail for perjury. And most people would lie about cheating on their spouse. Does this make it right? No, but it's not uncommon. Also, there isn't a single one of us who would have been questioned by a congressional committee on whether we had cheated on our spouse. That is a personal issue, between husband and wife. It's unfortunate that we as a collective American people feel that someone else's sex life is our business and that we should be judge and jury over something so personal and private.

Well...I always did think he mishandled it.

He should have said questions about his private life were off limits. Just as several presidents have before him.

Of course he could have handled it like Ronnie (I do not recall) Reagan, or **** (the VP is not part of the executive branch) Cheney, George (we are ignoring this summons) Bush or Harriet ( congress what congress) Meirs, or Larry ( the mail doesn't count) Craig, or....haha shall I go on?

Lying to congress and the American people?

Bush and Cheney have over and over...except in their case the lies were paid for in blood.

Clinton lies...lets see...a spoiled blue dress and a legion of jealous men who can only wish they had a woman on her knees under their desk lapping at their...

ha ha

I agree.

they were not under oath and thus did not commit perjury

Actually, technically speaking, if they were giving information to Congress in any kind of hearing, informal or formal, they are under oath. They are under oath the moment they take the Oath of Office and it is an ongoing thing. This would only apply, of course, if they actually out and out lied, which the world may never know.

actually that is not correct the news of the day was that they would not testify under oath when they were confronted about that information

no one from the bush camp was ever sworn under oath and said they would not permit themselves to be sworn in

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862296/


Their testimony was not under oath, but White House press secretary Scott McClellan said they would "tell it exactly how it happened." He also noted that he expected the president, not Cheney, to do most of the talking.

Excuse me but Bush and Cheney were.

They both took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Instead they engaged in treasonous, illegal acts that cost this country the lives of our children and destroyed our standing in the world community.

Yes...they both lied under oath.

I stand corrected. In any case, there was no perjury hearing, no hearing of any kind to determine what the truth actually is and it's doubtful there ever will be so it's really a moot point.

But, I guess it's ok to lie as long as you're not under oath then

using that argument also makes clinton guilty of treason wit the signing of the anti terrorist act

and to swear to uphold the constitution is irrelevant to the perjury discussion that is apples and oranges (and if it is not then clinton done both because he was under oath and also took oath of presidency)

Semen smeared dress ≠ Blood stained ground

And you say apples and oranges...

WOW...

You are right about that.

never said that it was ok to lie it was a point of order

but the govt does it all the time law enforcement lies to get suspects to say things all the time is that ok

lie is a lie and should not be tolerated anytime if law enforcement lies any evidence obtained from lie should be thrown out imo