Politico reports that Obama’s second inaugural oath for the “most transparent administration in history” might be administered privately, without any media present (h/t Morning Jolt):
“Mindful of the historic nature of this occasion, we expect the White House will continue the long tradition of opening the President’s official swearing-in to full press access, and we as an organization are looking forward to working with the administration to make that happen,” Ed Henry, the Fox News correspondent and president of the White House Correspondents Association, said in a statement.
Because inauguration day falls on a Sunday in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts will officially administer the official oath of office in a private ceremony that day. The public inauguration on the Capitol Building’s West Front — at which Roberts will administer a second, symbolic oath of office — will take place the next day.
In early meetings with the inaugural committee, officials privately indicated to reporters that the Jan. 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza, sources familiar with the meeting told POLITICO.
The White House Correspondents Association has reason to be concerned. While Obama’s second oath of office in 2009 (if you remember, he had to do it twice) wasn’t completely closed to the media, only four reporters were allowed to attend, writes Dylan Byers.
This issue seems more about principle than anything else, since Obama hasn’t exactly followed through on his vow to run a more transparent administration. It’s about time the press finally started calling him out on it. Maybe now that he’s won reelection the media will actually do its job and report critically on his presidency. At the very least this is a sign he’s not going to get the kid-gloves treatment he had during the election season.
Alana, some questions in relation to your conclusion that Obama won't be handled with "kid-gloves " by the press. Will Chabad houses begin offering pulled pork sandwiches on Sabbath? Will Herman Cain's "999" program be implemented by Obama? Will Chris Matthews confess that he was really a closet admirer and supporter of Newt Gingrich during the primary season? If you answered no to these questions, I think you and others will have to conclude there is NO likelihood that your speculation(hope) will ever be fulfilled.
There's a larger issue here: If the public doesn't see Obama sworn in, how exactly do we know he was? That is why this absolutely has to be public. ALL of it is public — that is why it has to be a judge, etc, etc, etc. n nIt is like why there has to be a witness to a marriage — it is why two people can't get married completely alone and by themselves, how is the public ever to really know they actually did it? n nIf there are no members of the general public present — and the press pool are there as members of the general public — how are we to know that he actually ever took the oath of office?
Maybe the question should be: who! That can be the only reason I would believe Obama wouldn't want to be in the "glow"….the who is important and the how comes in second.
"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." n nObama does not want to take this oath publicly for all to see, with his hand on a bible. I wonder why. I can think of all sorts of reasons; one of them is that it would remind many of what awful and insincere job he has done for the past four years. n
Perfect,AbsolutelyPerfect ! This POTUS will never take his oath privately or publicly with the seriousness that it deserves. He is a Fraud.
Weird, but not the most weighty of things about Obama to worry about it. There are plenty of other things to get upset about. I don't think it is wise to waste time on this one.
U r full of illusions! nBut the Pr. (highest official position in the country) should not be allowed to hide behind "secrecy".
Somebody has to start asking the questions – Why Two, and why in secrecy? Why does everyone assume that there must be two ceremonies? FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
This piece (and the comments which follow) is a good example of why I am a /former/ subscriber to Commentary. I'm still on the email list, at least until this comment is received. n nI began reading Commentary in the 1960s, at which time it was perhaps the foremost venue in this country for rigorous intellectual and political discourse. Yes, it was neoconservative, but all points of view were presented and discussed, if not in the body of the magazine, certainly in the letters. n nCommentary has, unfortunately, degenerated into a Right Wing rag of little intellectual interest, sort of like Fox News, with which it is often in agreement these days. n nThis article about Obama and his upcoming oath is emblematic of what I'm talking about. It's almost like the "birther" slanders. There is simply no substance here. The Constitution, as amended, sets the date for the beginning of the presidential term as January 20 at noon local time. January 20 falls on a Sunday, and historically we have not held public inaugurals on Sundays. In the past, when the beginning of the term has fallen on a Sunday, the oath has been taken in private (with witnesses present, as will be the case this time), and has been repeated the next day in public. Both Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were sworn in "privately" under the circumstances of the death of the preceding president, and these oaths of office were valid. The use, or lack thereof, of a Bible, or of which Bible, has no legal basis or requirement whatsoever. n nAs for Roberts' mishandling of the oath in 2009, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was done on purpose, or that it was caused by any medical condition. One of the commenters here has gone way beyond the known facts in an attempt to smear Roberts, a conservative, presumably because of his (the commenter's) disapproval of Roberts' judicial opinion on ObamaCare. I would add that I don't think a lot of people understand that the ObamaCare decision not only was legally correct, but will have the long term effect of weakening the Commerce Clause, of which conservatives generally disapprove, and of strengthening the future reputation and credibility of the Roberts' Court. Read Jeffrey Toobin's book, The Oath, to understand all of this.
Alana honey, r u merely ill-informed, or r u actually a charlatan? n By law, the President becomes President at 12:01 a.m. on inauguration day, with or without the oath of office. nSecond, there is no requirement that the wording of the oath be some verbatim formula. nThird, there is no requirement of ANY book in the oath. Several Presidents have made the affirmation without any book at all. LBJ was sworn in on a book of hymns, left by someone on Air Force 1. nlastly, Besht and conservatives, get over it! we live in a Republic, not a theocracy! especially u Jewish neo-cons—quit acting like u would love for the USA to be a Christian country. Christian does NOT mean Judeo-Christian. Why is it so bloody hard to keep your Bibles in your homes and houses of worship? nLeave it to O'Reilly and Prager to claim that greeting "Happy Holidays" (instead of Merry Christmas) is a betrayal of our country's Christian roots. By the way, O'Reilly sells "holiday balls" on his site to decorate your tree, NOT "Christmas balls." What a hypocrite!
Alana's right you schmuck: n nArticle II. Section 1 of the US Constitution concludes with the following paragraph: n"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." n n"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office" is archaic but quite clear, what part of the word "before" do you not understand? And Congress can pass any law it wishes, including one that the President has to shave his head and dance naked on the front lawn, but Congress can not supercede the US Constitution, which clearly states that "before…."
I just had a really bad image of President Taft dancing naked on the White House lawn. n nThe man was 5'11" and weighed 340 lbs when he was sworn in.
Is it possible that he intends to take the oath, not with a copy of the Bible, but a copy of the Koran? After all, he supposedly will not run again in 2016, so why does he have to hide his religious affiliation? Maybe he finds taking the oath on a Bible "offensive" and "outrageous", terms he's used often to denounce any criticism directed at him or anyone even remotely connected to him? The press may not be invited but it seems likely that there will be live streaming to the Presidential Palace in Egypt and the Royal Palace in Saudi Arabia.
Notice how it says "swear or affirm" — that was put in there because of the Quakers whose religious values precluded their ever taking an oath for reasons I can't quite remember. There is no requirement that you put your hand on anything, and neither Maine nor Massachusetts courts use anything when witnesses are sworn in court. n nHowever, as to Len's point about religion, one must remember that much of the mainstream Black community essentially is the Christian equivalent of a Chabad house. They are mostly AME or Baptist, both faiths on the serious end of the Protestant spectrum (think Orthodox Jew), and every horizontal surface in their homes has either a picture of Jesus or a religious statement, often both if there is enough physical space. n nThere already were Black ministers opposing his re-election and were Obama to ever state he was anything other than Christian, it would be sorta like providing an unlimited supply of free beer to college kids on a Thursday night — it would have a visceral national reaction like the Kent State shooting did. He would be considered the "Anti-Christ" foretold in the Book of Revelations — and I am actually starting to wonder if he really might be, but I digress. n n(Remember – Christian theology — the "AntiChrist" initially appears to be and claims to be the Savior foretold in the Old Testament/Torah, but isn't. And actually is loyal to someone else.) n nNever forget that the base leadership of the Black community are older Black women who are incredibly serious about Christianity and this is in no small part due to the continuing saga of the men in their lives, both of their own generation and their sons. This is in direct conflict with the Hispanic community which is male centered and part of why the two groups don't get along, but it also is because we now have three generations into a culture where only black women are educated, and one where public assistance (paid to the woman) has made the Black male largely irrelevant beyond his role as a plaything and sperm donor.
Len, Alana, u would lose any 8th grade debate with your setting up of straw men. Set up and knock down creations that do not exist, except maybe in your fevered minds. First of all, u all know that finally all these events WILL be public in the end. Second, Len, could u please produce a copy of the Quran he will swear on? Finally, all of u, keep your Bibles, and Qurans, and Talmuds out of my public space! Why can u not leave your personal religions in your homes and Churches? Get over it! If secularism were a religion, it would be the single largest religion in the America.
Notwithstanding the completely unfounded ad-hominum assault on Ms. Goodman, whom I once saw win a debate with a tenured Afro-Am Professor who had been terrifying UM administrators longer than she had been alive, Lenewyorkais raises an interesting point, and only the first oath of office really counts, with the redundant ceremony being just that. n nFor example, back when Catholic colleges were actually Catholic, they had a real issue with unmarried couples living together. A lot of women were supervising dormitories as they finished grad degrees and intended to get married in June after graduation — but wanted to have their boyfriends living with them now, in the dorm RD apartment. For quite practical reasons, they wanted to save the money spent for boyfriend's apartment for a down-payment on a house, and she wanted to both spend time with boyfriend and be in dorm if needed. n nHence, they had to go down to City Hall and get married with the bureaucrat witnessing them taking the oaths — and they then were officially, legally married and had a marriage license with that date on it — and the college had no problem with a married couple living together. She would still have her June wedding, but it was completely ceremonial and the words meaningless because they were already married anyway. n nThat's why Obama's oath on Sunday absolutely must be public. That is the only one that counts, and while the swearing of oaths is as archaic as the red & green running lights on airplanes (look really close and the tip of the right wing has a green light, not red), there are some very serous legal consequences in both cases if this archaic protocol isn't observed. n nMs. Goodman has a very valid point on two levels. Above and beyond mine, Obama promised to be transparent and something like this really smells bad.
I wonder whether the comment pasted below, which I tried to post last night, was overlooked, or more likely, that it was censored because of content. If it was censored, it makes what I said about Commentary even more valid. I'll try once more. n nThis piece (and the comments which follow) is a good example of why I am a /former/ subscriber to Commentary. n nI began reading Commentary in the 1960s, at which time it was perhaps the foremost venue in this country for rigorous intellectual and political discourse. Yes, it was neoconservative, but all points of view were presented and discussed, if not in the body of the magazine, certainly in the letters. n nCommentary has, unfortunately, degenerated into a Right Wing rag of little intellectual interest, sort of like Fox News, with which it is often in agreement these days. n nThis article about Obama and his upcoming oath is emblematic of what I'm talking about. It's almost like the "birther" slanders. There is simply no substance here. The Constitution, as amended, sets the date for the beginning of the presidential term as January 20 at noon local time. January 20 falls on a Sunday, and historically we have not held public inaugurals on Sundays. In the past, when the beginning of the term has fallen on a Sunday, the oath has been taken in private (with witnesses present, as will be the case this time), and has been repeated the next day in public. Both Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were sworn in "privately" under the circumstances of the death of the preceding president, and these oaths of office were valid. The use, or lack thereof, of a Bible, or of which Bible, has no legal basis or requirement whatsoever. n nAs for Roberts' mishandling of the oath in 2009, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was done on purpose, or that it was caused by any medical condition. One of the commenters here has gone way beyond the known facts in an attempt to smear Roberts, a conservative, presumably because of his (the commenter's) disapproval of Roberts' judicial opinion on ObamaCare. I would add that I don't think a lot of people understand that the ObamaCare decision not only was legally correct, but will have the long term effect of weakening the Commerce Clause, of which conservatives generally disapprove, and of strengthening the future reputation and credibility of the Roberts' Court. Read Jeffrey Toobin's book, The Oath, to understand all of this.
"Finally, all of u, keep your Bibles, and Qurans, and Talmuds out of my public space!" n nThree things. First, the "establishment" clause was NEVER intended to prevent states from having an official state church — most did in 1787 — it was to prevent any one state from imposing their church on any other state. The old Puritan church evolved into the Congregational Church (and now into Reverend Wright's UCC, which is another issue) and Massachusetts required every town to build a church and hire a minister and pay for both from the property taxes — and did so until 1855. n nSecond, there is also the "free speech" clause –and this was the battle I won with the Christmas Tree at UMass. Content neutrality includes religion, and I can express anything I want to, including religious values, in a public forum. n nBut third, and most important, I would like to see global warming considered a religion. Why isn't it one, you are required to take things on faith not fact, and why am I forced to worship a false Green god?
dearest Ed. don't u know the difference between science and religion? Science is based on evidence: observation, experimentation, analysis of data, and peer review. Religion is something u believe in, usually the same thing your parents taught u. For example, many religions believe in an afterlife, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that belief. the stuff that the faithful call evidence r some weak anecdotes about how God talked to man a few thousand years ago all hearsay. Like I said, why is it so terribly hard for u to keep your religion in your private space? worship whatever u like, but do not force me to do so as well. OK? deal?
It is too late and I am too tired to pretend to be rational. Global Warming and Jesus Christ are both religious beliefs, which are not shared by all, and there are no distinctions between the two.
You want me to keep my religion in my private space? n nOK, you keep all your opinions, values and expressions in YOUR private space. nWould you have a problem with that? n nAnd let me be very clear on something: I have more faith in God than Global Warming, one has been there for me when it counted….
Ed, u think God pulled u out of a jam? so why the devil did he put u in that jam to begin with?
ya, Ed, God came out of the clouds and pulled u out of a jam. Now why did He not prevent the jam in the first place? why beg God to cure one's cancer, when he gave u the cancer in the first place? Ya, ya, I know…to teach us something. Right, God is your personal tutor.
The 2nd amendment was written in 1791, 221 years ago when Flintlock guns were popularized. Couldnt hit the broad side of a barn. Do you think your founding fathers actually had the foresight of The AR 15 assault riffle? I think not. nFurther, for shits and giggles, take 10,000 NRA gun lovers put them on an island. Build them schools, post offices, Walmarts, jails etc etc. Then take 10,000 honest Americans, give them the same amenities with the exception of no guns. Just see which population grows and prospers. I'm betting my left testicle it's the latter.