He’s done it again, then. It was obviously Chief Justice Roberts’s fault; he was the only who put the adverb faithfully at the end of the second clause, rather than at the beginning, as it should be. Perhaps it was some mad fear of a split infinitive, or something. I bet Fowler would have diagnosed that. Anyway, an “abundance of caution” means they’ve redone it so as to ward off crazy constitutional trouble-makers and presumably bloggers.
All this raises some interesting constitutional questions about the oath, though, especially about its timing and whether Obama was President before he took the oath, as suggested by the 20th amendment, or whether he only took office after the oath was given, as Article 2 of the US Constitution would suggest. If you’re interested, Howard Wasserman’s post at PrawfsBlawg sets out the arguments.
Interesting that the oath itself is non-religious and that the use of a bible and addition of the words so help me God are mere unconstitutional accretions. Having a black President is a great, historic thing, but America will take another huge step forward if one day a new President leaves out those words.
Can’t imagine any US president ever making a serious remark to the nation without bringing God into it, so ingrained is the almighty in everyday American politics. I rather got the impression that Barrack Hussein had learned this off by heart, and was therefore thrown all the more by Robert’s bungle.
Let’s hope Carter-Ruck doesn’t hear of the speculation as to the legitimacy of Obama’s, presidency as it might be grounds for a slander action in the UK courts as it was broadcast here. He’d be better employed prosecuting rogue cyclists, if you know what I mean.