h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration? - A46395327
Author: dmitrigheorgheni - U1590784

It seems strange to put anything here. It has been a long time.

Entry, Dmitri.

Two remarks: There seems to be a space missing in "Washington DC Mall"; and maybe you should add a footnote that, although Obama is the 44th President, he's the *43rd* man to fill the post, since Grover Cleveland served two terms, but not consecutively.

Best of

Ah, thanks for the proofread, Nite Owl. Will check that out.

Good idea about Grover.

Much ado about nothing, really, if you ask me. We've never been that particular about following all the particulars of the Constitution.

There's a story that I can't recall all the details of... One president-elect refused to be inaugurated on the set inauguration day because it was a Sunday. So they pushed it back to Monday. As the terms of the President and Vice President expired at noon on that inauguration day, "technically", the Presidency temporarily passed to the man next in line in Presidential succession. When later asked how he spent that day, that man answered that he recalled sleeping through most of it.

For some reason, I think that the President-elect in question was Taylor, but I can't be certain as to why I believe that. I'm sure I could find out, but I don't think it's terribly important.

There are also those who would claim that Joe Biden was President for, what, 8 minutes between noon and when President Obama was inaugurated. These people take things far too literally.

I think that if the authors of the Constitution (Founding Fathers and otherwise - the 20th amendment was ratified in the 1930s) saw people spending any amount of time whatsoever on these things, they would have to sigh deeply.

This is true.

But then we might have to talk about *important* things.

By the way, Jordan: the reason for my disturbing anyone with these trivia is the 'Stretcher' assignment...which was supposed to be about a subject that was 'emotionally overblown'.

I thought worrying about that oath fit the bill.

Thank heavens for an abundance of caution.

Ms GB

'The oath as prescribed in the Constitution reads as follows:

'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.'

What Chief Justice Roberts and Senator Obama said was, '...I will execute the office of President of the United States faithfully...so help me God.'

Except it was more complicated than this. It was conducted like a wedding ceremony with Chief Justice saying the first few words and then Obama repeating.

It was Roberts who made the first mistake, putting 'faithfully' in the wrong place. Obama, who was meticulously prepared, was thrown by the disjointed rhythm in the incorrect version and (I think) responded in the correct way. Roberts, realising his mistake, tried to correct himself by re-iterating the few words correctly, so that he and Obama were spoeakinhg at the same time. It was something like this - but definitely Roberts' fault.

"By the way, Jordan: the reason for my disturbing anyone with these trivia is the 'Stretcher' assignment...which was supposed to be about a subject that was 'emotionally overblown'."

Oh, I know. And it's not a criticism of your entry, really. I was just offering two of my cents.

Thanks for this explanation of the mix up at Obama's inauguration.

Of course, given our antiquated constitution, nobody seems quite sure what the Queen is supposed to do when the leader of the party which has just won the election goes to see her.

Thanks too, for the bit of history about George Washington. However, I think that the switch from talking about Washington to talking about Obama is a bit abrupt.

I just watched 'The Queen' last night, and it would appear from that film that Mr Tony Blair wasn't sure what to do, either.

The comparison with inaugural ceremonies struck me there...it is necessary to have some way to insure continuity in the transfer of power.

Was that what you were saying? That the connection between the difficulties of establishing this ritual in Washington's day and the faux pas on Tuesday was not clear?

Or simply that you were unprepared for the connection to be introduced?

If the latter is the case, what would you suggest?

It may be just a case of the meaning getting slightly blurred on its Transatlantic crossing. Over here the name of Chief Justice Roberts isn't universally known, whilst everybody has heard of Barack Obama.
Maybe if you mentioned the President-elect first it would avoid that odd feeling that we might still be talking about Washington.

Or maybe it was just me being slow.

Brilliant article and very interesting.

<>

I think if you add that to the paragraph above it, all on Washington, then do the Obama bit as a separate paragraph using his name, it might make it clearer. I had the same problem reading it as others as it jumped from past to present very abruptly.

Websailor

Thank you for the translation. Will do somethng about that.

New paragraph, more familiar name first.

At the risk of a bad pun, I hope that's a better transition.

Interesting. I wondered what all the fuss was about. Princess Diana Spencer got the order of her groom's many names wrong when saying her oath in church. It was widely debated, but I don't think anybody feared she wasn't legally married afterwards.

Princess Diana Spencer? Lady Diana Spencer did indeed transpose two of her groom's four Christian names, she called him Philip Charles Arthur George instead of Charles Philip Arthur George. Prince Charles then deliberately made a mistake of his own, so she wouldn't feel so bad. It was widely debated, but I recall there being a statement to the tune of yes, they were legally married, so there must have been some doubt expressed.

GB

Odd, isn't it? I mean, given the circumstances, with the whole world watching, you'd think people would just laugh about such a small mistake made out of nervousness. Given the fact that my deliberate mistake was immediately corrected, it is maybe not as odd as I thought, though.

Aha. More matter that is 'emotionally overblown'?