I see that President Obama had the Chief Justice re-administer the oath of office (correctly) this time in an ‘abundance of caution’ following the imperfect recitation of the oath the first time (due to mis-prompting by the Chief during the Inaugural).
I don’t think there are in fact four federal judges in the country who would have held that Obama was not in fact the President at all relevant times were the issue to have gone to trial. Even so, I agree that the re-administration of the oath of office was a fairly costless way for Team Obama to pacify the wingnuts and ultra-orthodox strict constructionists who might have been baying at the moon on this issue.
I post now, after it’s (almost) all over only to make two points:
Update (1/22): From Political Animal,
Just for the record, Obama really was president after the first oath, and everything he did yesterday was legit. In 1789, George Washington was president for seven weeks before he’d taken the oath, but he still had all the authority of the office.
That sounds like contemporaneous construction to me.
I think we've got enough anti-formalist doctrine already, thank you. Agreed about standing, and it would have been a lovely fight.
It would have been very troubling if Obama hadn't bothered to take the oath correctly; While it's a fairly trivial matter, and I doubt he actually feels bound by that oath in any substantial way any more than his recent predecessors, it would have been a bad sign if he hadn't bothered complying with the Constitution even where the cost of compliance approaches zero.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at January 22, 2009 06:53 AMI would add that he became president at noon whether he took the office or not. The naysayers seem to be of a mindset to get ugly on this - now it's because the 2nd time they didn't use a Bible. sigh...
Posted by: ez at January 22, 2009 12:20 PM