Not surprisingly, there is plentiful discussion of the oath tango. Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog, for instance, has a thread, copped from the Washington Post. Both sources specify that “the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.” Really? Here’s what our forefathers proclaimed:
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.”(Courtesy the NARA transcript.)
I read this as instructing the President to “take” the oath. There is no indication, other than the quotation marks, that the oath must be recited verbatim. Nor could there be, since there are two variables already at play: the personal name of the office holder (for which no provision appears) and the choice between “swear” and “affirm.” In any event, I’m inclined to accept that capturing the spirit and intent of an oath is tantamount to “taking” it. Besides, the Constitution is rarely clear about anything at all. Why should it be so here? (No fun!)
Then there’s this tidbit from Steve Coll at New Yorker about the inaugural speech. I found this passage especially telling:
He intends to govern from the center, obviously, and this speech affirmed that posture for all of those who remain skeptical. He also seeks transformation—in the health-care system, in the energy economy. These lines will cross and conflict. What he does at those intersections in the next six to twelve months is what will ultimately define today’s speech.
That last line is rich. In other words, it almost admits, Obama could as well have read from an automotive parts and accessories catalog. One year hence, we’ll know where the rubber hits the road. The John Cage in me might have preferred such a reading, a little bit of toying around with our occasional and rhetorical expectations.
Accidental Blogger 
One response to “Obama on the right path?”
Not surprisingly, there is plentiful discussion of the oath tango. Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog, for instance, has a thread, copped from the Washington Post. Both sources specify that “the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.” Really? Here’s what our forefathers proclaimed:
I read this as instructing the President to “take” the oath. There is no indication, other than the quotation marks, that the oath must be recited verbatim. Nor could there be, since there are two variables already at play: the personal name of the office holder (for which no provision appears) and the choice between “swear” and “affirm.” In any event, I’m inclined to accept that capturing the spirit and intent of an oath is tantamount to “taking” it. Besides, the Constitution is rarely clear about anything at all. Why should it be so here? (No fun!)
Then there’s this tidbit from Steve Coll at New Yorker about the inaugural speech. I found this passage especially telling:
That last line is rich. In other words, it almost admits, Obama could as well have read from an automotive parts and accessories catalog. One year hence, we’ll know where the rubber hits the road. The John Cage in me might have preferred such a reading, a little bit of toying around with our occasional and rhetorical expectations.
LikeLike