What do you think?
Are these experts seriously addressing the problem? Or is this a case of "academic tongue-in-cheek" syndrome? Was the oath "re-administered"?
When I see Professor Turley's name on the list, well, I pay attention. To summarize they say that it should be done again, although is not mandatory:
"Several constitutional lawyers said President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts. The 35-word oath is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president "shall" take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office."
More below...
The report continues:
"A do-over "would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it's not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe," said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. "It's an open question whether he's president until he takes the proper oath."
The courts would probably never hear a challenge, and some might argue that Obama automatically took office at noon because that's when President Bush left the office. But because the procedure is so explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Beermann said if he were Obama's lawyer, he would recommend retaking it, just as two previous presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, did under similar circumstances."
Link:
http://www.sfgate.com/...
I do like history and I just wanted to point out that Roberts' blunder was, indeed, of historic proportions.