Obama: To Oath or not to Oath
It appears Senator Barack Obama will take the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. The Constitution requires that before the president 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." (Article II Section 1)
What is unclear is whether this new president can honestly take such an oath.
In our previous post regarding Senator Obama's views on redistribution we provided the link to a 2001 interview on WBEZ, the national public radio station in Chicago. In that interview Senator Obama describes the failure of the Warren Court to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" as if the Court should have done so.
It is his view of this as a failure, the failure of the court to find a way around the constitution, around the constraints of the nation's basic law that is so remarkable. Instead of celebrating the Constitution, Senator Obama expresses regret that the Court was unable to relegate the Constitution to irrelevancy. It is that view, the view that the Constitution is an obstacle to be worked around rather than honored that is in conflict with the oath Mr. Obama is required to take to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution as it is written.
3 comments:
...uphold the Constitution and the Constitutional processes for changing it...
you guys need to find something to do with your brains because right now.. they are experiencing smoke from logic wiring problems.
sour grapes is taking some seriously aberrant paths...here
Really reaching for the bottom of the barrel, aren't you? If you have any genuine interest in this topic, you can easily find the entire transcript. You will then see that what President-elect Obama actually said is precisely the opposite of what you suggest here.
How ridiculous.
We appreciate the comments. Mr. Weintraub suggests that we have misinterpreted Mr. Obama's interview remarks, but presents no evidence to support his claim. Describing the Warren court as failing to break free from the essential constraints in the constitution, suggests a view of the constitution as irrelevant and and obstacle to be overcome. This correspondent then retains the position that this expressed view is inconsistent with a mandate to uphold, protect and defend.
Post a Comment