Do You Remember Where You Were When Obama Was Inaugurated?
So tomorrow history will be made. Just like election night last November, I'm pretty sure tomorrow morning will be another one of those moments for our generation in which we will always remember where we were. We haven't had many of such moments, and I'm glad that this one will be mixed with "happy" unlike some of the other memorable moments we've had. See, e.g., 9/11, Bush's 2000 win, Bush's 2004 win, Crystal Pepsi.
Anyway, it seems to me that somewhere around half of my friends are going to be in D.C. for the inauguration tomorrow. Of course, given the scarcity of tickets, I sincerely doubt any of them will see any of the proceedings from a good vantage point. But they will forever be able to say that they were there the day the first African American President was sworn in. Lucky b*stards.
Unfortunately, I, like many of you I assume, are not so lucky and will be watching either at home, or perhaps at one of the campus locations. At least we'll be a part of history in another way: TV ratings of the inauguration are expected set new TV ratings records. Some are predicting up to 5 billion will watch the event on TV. That's just crazy.
If you didn't see the emails, there are two locations to view the inauguration with fellow Berkeleyians tomorrow: in Sproul Plaza starting at 7:30 AM or with your fellow law students in Booth.
I thought I'd post this entry for all those with interesting stories of the inauguration in D.C. (or possibly more interesting stories of the parties occurring last weekend in D.C.). Anybody see Nancy Pelosi doing victory keg stands or Bush throwing away all the "O" keys from the Whitehouse computers?* Lay your stories of D.C. debauchery upon those of us not lucky enough to witness the madness firsthand.
-----
-----
*Ok, I totally bogarted that last joke from Jon Stewart.
Anyway, it seems to me that somewhere around half of my friends are going to be in D.C. for the inauguration tomorrow. Of course, given the scarcity of tickets, I sincerely doubt any of them will see any of the proceedings from a good vantage point. But they will forever be able to say that they were there the day the first African American President was sworn in. Lucky b*stards.
Unfortunately, I, like many of you I assume, are not so lucky and will be watching either at home, or perhaps at one of the campus locations. At least we'll be a part of history in another way: TV ratings of the inauguration are expected set new TV ratings records. Some are predicting up to 5 billion will watch the event on TV. That's just crazy.
If you didn't see the emails, there are two locations to view the inauguration with fellow Berkeleyians tomorrow: in Sproul Plaza starting at 7:30 AM or with your fellow law students in Booth.
I thought I'd post this entry for all those with interesting stories of the inauguration in D.C. (or possibly more interesting stories of the parties occurring last weekend in D.C.). Anybody see Nancy Pelosi doing victory keg stands or Bush throwing away all the "O" keys from the Whitehouse computers?* Lay your stories of D.C. debauchery upon those of us not lucky enough to witness the madness firsthand.
-----
-----
*Ok, I totally bogarted that last joke from Jon Stewart.
posted by caley at 7:32 PM
34 Comments:
I submit that Sproul Plaza is just as likely as DC to produce "interesting stories" from inauguration day. Starting, for example, with the two blonde dudes who have been patrolling campus in robes, beating drums and tambourines, and chanting in a foreign language. All while wearing hundred dollar sandals.
So, I second Caley. If you go have stories, please do share for those with the good sense to go to Booth.
I thought going to Booth was the right choice, until getting there and finding out we were watching the broadcast online from someone's laptop. The image kept freezing up and the sound quality was terrible. Should have gone to Sproul.
Oh, and I am very interested to see how the clowns on Fox (Hannity and that other waste of primetime) handle Obama's faltering on the oath. Obviously, he was just a little more excited than his calm exterior let on.
Am I the only one who thought Roberts may have bungled the oath and not Obama? I believe he said 'execute [the Office] faithfully' rather than 'faithfully execute.'
Damn. Good call Matt. TMZ agrees with you.
Well, in that case I'd love to see the Fox clowns jump on Obama just to look like idiots.
Yeah. That's my sense of it. Roberts bungled it, and then Obama paused because he was trying to decide whether to say it correctly (as I'm sure he had memorized and practiced hundreds of times) or whether to repeat what Roberts said.
Either way they cut it, I hope it becomes the big story. That'd be a great way to start this post-politics administration.
Yeah, it was definitely Roberts who bungled it. I was hoping Obama would say, "Want to try that again, John?"
Caley, I know Stuart made the "O" keys joke, but it was based on reality. Apparently the clinton administration really did remove all the "W" keys before Bush came in.
I thought this was a rather odd coincidence: "[b]efore Obama, a president had never been sworn in by a chief justice he voted against." Of course, that might not be that amazing given that chief justices are probably often voted in long before the presidents they swear in ever take office as legislators.
Did anyone else think it would be pretty crazy if Bush had a heart attack during Aretha Franklin's song, and for about three minutes, Biden was president?
*That last comment should not be interpreted as my wishing a heart attack on no-longer-president Bush
I'm just going to point out that ATL (and I) note that Obama jumped the gun a bit at the start, which probably started a chain reaction of awkwardness.
Yeah, he almost seemed anxious to be President. What a nut.
yeah and roberts wasn't nervous being on tv in front of 5 billion people, i'm sure.
just noting that blaming roberts is rather silly.
Oh, yeah I know. Sorry, didn't mean it to sound snarky. I agree Obama jumped the gun.
How can you say definitively that he jumped the gun? I mean, couldn't we say that Roberts forgot to pause after "I, Barack Hussein Obama,"? There is a comma there. Perhaps he should have paused. Perhaps Obama didn't jump the gun. Perhaps we should stop talking about it.
scholars say a do-over is required
"This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe malfunction."
So, it was an orchestrated stunt covered up with an implausible lie? Seems like a pretty odd comparison.
Teej, no offense, but I'm going to nit-pick. I don't think the scholars say a do over is "required." It's more like they speculate that it couldn't hurt.
My impression is that it really doesn't matter, except maybe to conspiracy theorists in Idaho. First, Barack Obama has met every other Constitutional requirement to take office today at noon; the most notable ones being approval by the electoral college and subsequent certification by Congress. Second, given certification, the oath is presumably an official act by President Obama. Whether he preformed it properly or not, Presidents enjoy tremendous immunity from suits arising from their official actions. Third, assuming there were a way around the immunity problem, who would have standing to bring suit in the first place? Someone would have to show that the misplaced word caused them a non-speculative injury that is redressable in the courts. I can't imagine any pleading coming close.
As if all that weren't convincing enough, SCOTUSblog agrees.
I didn't profess any opinion on the matter, nor suggest the scholarly community is in agreement - the article merely conveyed that a prudent lawyer would direct Obama to do it over.
Now, we're not used to our executive branch taking the prudent legal route. I, on the other hand, HOPE that we've elected one that would.
And, no offense, to nit-pick your argument (and linked authority): it is limited to detailing why legal action would have difficulty succeeding - and does nothing to address the merits of whether or not the spirit of the Constitution would require a do-over.
And [for the love of G*D] please tell me that (on the very first day he is in power) we're not going to see ANOTHER president dance around the spirit of the law with legal technicalities.
PS: don't read into this that I care about whether he takes another oath - I think they're overrated anyway. But I've found the resulting debating/chatter amusing, that's for sure.
[The argument is] limited to detailing why legal action would have difficulty succeeding - and does nothing to address the merits of whether or not the spirit of the Constitution would require a do-over.
???
No. Whether the hypothetical legal action could succeed is inextricably bound to the "spirit" of the Constitution, because standing is a constitutional requirement -- standing is never a "barrier" to a valid lawsuit. In other words, the elements of standing are part of the merits, not a barrier to accessing them.
I'm sure Nixon would have agreed with you.
everyone would agree with him.
The question of whether the president is immune to suits or whether a legal action would lack standing in court does not address the issue of whether the letter of the law was followed in the performance of the oath. I would hope "everyone" wouldn't miss such a simple point, 10:15.
Look, we could have a philosophical discussion about the nature of law here (can Congress pass a law that says no one can think about the color blue? is that really a law given that it is (i) unenforceable and (ii) has no effect, no bang, in the real world?) but to the degree you believe that the injury-in-fact element of standing, which is essential to any lawsuit, is separate from the merits of that lawsuit, you are mistaken. That is a black-letter doctrine question with answer. And yes, everyone would agree.
Of course standing has every bit to do with the merits of a lawsuit. Again, I'm not asserting Obama is in danger of getting kicked out of office.
I simply state a clear fact: the Constitution requires an oath to be taken in a very specific manner, and it has not been taken [in that manner]. Every president before Obama has taken that oath, and those prior presidents who also screwed it up have gone back to do it again.
I'm sure Coolidge and Arthur didn't ask for a do-over out of a fear of lawsuits. They did it because the Constitution was not followed and what's right is right.
Not to mention it takes 30 frickin seconds. Geez.
Aside to Obama fans: you got your man. The election is over and now he's the president. Maybe it's time to see he's fallible - just like every man who has held the job before him?
I'm glad he won, but GEZUS it's humorous to think about what would be said on this board if it was McCain in the same spot (or Bush for that matter).
I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, and I'm going to drop the issue after this comment, but TJ you are arguing the losing side of the question at ssue in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife -- can the law require the Executive branch to behave in certain ways even though nobody has a right to bring an enforcing action? Put another way, does the law sometimes require things above and beyond what a judicial remedy can order?
The Supreme Court said the answer was no, in a holding they have affirmed a number of times. In Defenders of Wildlife, plaintiffs sued an executive agency, demanding the agency follow its own procedures. The Court dismissed their case, holding that there was no "abstract, self-contained, non-instrumental 'right' to have the Executive observe the procedures required by law." Even if the plaintiffs in that case had been able to show an injury, they did not have any right or interest in seeing the Executive properly follow procedure.
The analogy from Defenders of Wildlife to the Presidential Oath is straightforward, and under that case, the answer pretty clear-cut.
Ok, Patrick. Your point has been made again and again: "Obama doesn't have to follow a rule if nobody can legally compel him to do so."
Cute. That's exactly the way I'd love the next four years to go - exactly the same as the last eight. Way to start it off on the right foot!
I, personally, have been speaking to a different element. I'm saying I would like my president to think: "Hmmm... I broke a rule and I'd like to fix it - even if nobody can compel me to."
Especially given it is so symbolic to so many people (again, me not included)...
But I agree: we can leave it at that.
Have you not taken Con Law yet or are you just forgetful? Either way, you clearly don't understand the issue here. Patrick is not saying that the president is allowed to break rules when nobody can enforce them. Patrick is saying that the reason nobody can enforce them is that there is no rule. This discussion has nothing to do with the previous president, with Richard Nixon, with abuse of power, or with the spirit of the law. It has to do with your fundamental misunderstanding of an established principle of constitutional law. You are entitled to disagree with the principle, or argue the propriety of the doctrine, but you should admit it will require the supreme court to reverse 200 years of case law.
There is a case wherein somebody tried to challenge the validity of Justice Blackmun's appointment on similar grounds. I don't know the name, but it's right on point.
I almost offered a substantive response to TJ, but his comparison of a misplaced word to Bush's constitutional transgressions made it too farcical for any meaningful discussion.
Haha. Again, I'd like to say is that I personally don't give a shit about whether the oath had been properly administered.
And, Armen, I included that bit in jest, obviously (sarcasm often doesn't come through well over blog entries so you're going to have to assume that 90% of what I say is dripping in it).
12:51 - I feel you and Patrick are caught up being good lawyers and are thereby missing my point. Maybe all caps will work?
I GET THAT THERE ARE NO LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS THAT ARISE FROM OBAMA MISPLACING A WORD IN HIS OATH.
The question is whether he SHOULD take the same oath that has been taken by every president before him REGARDLESS of whether the Constitutional provision specifying the manner of the oath can be considered a "rule" under some 200 year old SCOTUS case or can be enforced in a lawsuit.
Again, whether or not he HAS TO has been well established by nearly every media source that has reported upon this story. WOW.
Now go re-read my post at 11:04 AM.
Dismissed as moot.
BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH
Q: "How many Harvard Law Review editors does it take to get the presidential oath right?"
A: "More than two."
TJ, Add Jack Balkin to the list of scholars who think a do-over was required. Sort of.
Post a Comment
<< Home