The furor about Obama misstating the Constitutional oath of office doesn't seem to go away. So the Chief Justice traveled to the White House and re-administered the oath, exactly as the Constitution specifies, earlier today. So -- that's it. He took the correct oath, it's all done.
But, the thing has taught me a new phrase -- "multum in parvo." This is Latin. It means "storm in pot" or, more loosely, "tempest in a teapot." So I, for one, have profited from this.
January 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Why did Justice Roberts have to make a special trip? There is no need for someone to administer the oath, right? Obama just needs to say it in front of witnesses.
As I think about it, I guess it is out of courtesy to have Roberts be part of it.
If I had been in Roberts' shoes, I would have wanted to have done it myself.
Note, though, that Obama didn't use a Bible the second time around.
Someone got their wish
After a flawless recitation that included no Bible and took 25 seconds, Roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations, again."
Question to an attorney. If I didn't recite my marriage vows exactly as stated, am I able to get out of the marriage without an attorney. (no smart answers, I have a million of them)
The law has a concept called "harmless error," with broad application. A minor error in form will not alter the outcome of a legal event.
In the case of a marriage, the signing of the certificate controls, not an error made while reciting vows during a solemnization ceremony. As far as the law is concerned, there is no specific prescribed content for the ceremony in the first place, so you can say whatever vows you want; there are no 'wrong' vows.
Post a Comment