(01-21) 04:00 PST Washington - -- Several constitutional lawyers said
President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office
that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Images

View More Images


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More News
Supreme Court won't revive online content law 01.21.09
Wall Street moves higher led by tech stocks 01.21.09
Fla. priest accused of theft pleads guilty 01.21.09
Taliban demands end to music on Pakistan buses 01.21.09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."

The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear 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."

In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully," at which
point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but
Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

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.

"The Constitution says what he's supposed to say," Beermann said. "...
It's kind of surprising the chief justice couldn't get it right."

The only reason not to retake the oath would be to prevent further
embarrassment of the chief justice, he said. "It would seem
appropriate for the president of the United States to take the oath
specified in the Constitution," he said. "It's the same oath all 43 of
his predecessors took. He ought to take it."

Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that the oath is
mandatory, that an incorrect recitation should be fixed and that he
would be surprised if the oath hadn't already been re-administered.

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington
University, was hosting an inauguration party at his home in McLean,
Va., Tuesday and did a mock swearing-in of 35 children. When Roberts
erred, one child shouted: "That's not right!"

"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Turley said.
"If he doesn't, there are going to be people who for the next four
years are going to argue that he didn't meet the constitutional
standard. I don't think it's necessary, and it's not a constitutional
crisis. This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe
malfunction."