A Conversation for 20 January, 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Peer Review: A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Started conversation Jan 24, 2009
Entry: 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration? - A46395327
Author: dmitrigheorgheni - U1590784
It seems strange to put anything here. It has been a long time.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Otus Nycteus Posted Jan 24, 2009
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
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 24, 2009
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
J Posted Jan 24, 2009
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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 24, 2009
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 24, 2009
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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Trout Montague Posted Jan 24, 2009
Thank heavens for an abundance of caution.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor Posted Jan 24, 2009
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
BigAl Patron Saint of Left Handers Keeper of the Glowing Pickle and Monobrows Posted Jan 24, 2009
'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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
J Posted Jan 24, 2009
"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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
minorvogonpoet Posted Jan 24, 2009
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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 24, 2009
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?
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
minorvogonpoet Posted Jan 25, 2009
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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Websailor Posted Jan 25, 2009
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
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 25, 2009
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 25, 2009
New paragraph, more familiar name first.
At the risk of a bad pun, I hope that's a better transition.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Merry Anne Posted Jan 25, 2009
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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor Posted Jan 25, 2009
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
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Merry Anne Posted Jan 25, 2009
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.
A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor Posted Jan 25, 2009
Key: Complain about this post
Peer Review: A46395327 - 20 January 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
- 1: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 24, 2009)
- 2: Otus Nycteus (Jan 24, 2009)
- 3: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 24, 2009)
- 4: J (Jan 24, 2009)
- 5: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 24, 2009)
- 6: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 24, 2009)
- 7: Trout Montague (Jan 24, 2009)
- 8: Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor (Jan 24, 2009)
- 9: BigAl Patron Saint of Left Handers Keeper of the Glowing Pickle and Monobrows (Jan 24, 2009)
- 10: J (Jan 24, 2009)
- 11: minorvogonpoet (Jan 24, 2009)
- 12: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 24, 2009)
- 13: minorvogonpoet (Jan 25, 2009)
- 14: Websailor (Jan 25, 2009)
- 15: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 25, 2009)
- 16: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 25, 2009)
- 17: Merry Anne (Jan 25, 2009)
- 18: Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor (Jan 25, 2009)
- 19: Merry Anne (Jan 25, 2009)
- 20: Dmitri Gheorgheni, Post Editor (Jan 25, 2009)
More Conversations for 20 January, 2009 - A Presidential Inauguration?
- A88048849 - Gulls - a Beginner's Guide to Identification [5]
18 Hours Ago - A88057191 - 'Cabin Pressure' - the Radio Comedy [11]
Last Week - A88054590 - 'Mansfield Park' - a Novel by Jane Austen [1]
Aug 17, 2024 - A88040063 - Neolassicistic Art - Mass Market and Industrialisation [4]
May 23, 2024 - A88040072 - Neoclassicistic Architecture - Back to the Basics [4]
May 23, 2024
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."