Obama Swears Twice–AGAIN!

President Barack Obama takes the oath of office during the 56th Presidential Inauguration Ceremony, Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When President Obama took his first public inauguration oath in A.D. 2009, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts “accidentally” misread the words of the oath.  Later, Obama took the oath a second time in private with the correct words.

Conspiracy theorists were incensed.  They claimed that, clearly, this was evidence that Obama was taking one oath in public and another in private and that he was therefore occupying two offices, or maybe only the “private” presidency, or maybe . . . .

After a while the two-oath “conspiracy theory” of A.D.2009 disappeared under the tsunami of ongoing news.

But guess what?  The Associated Press reports today that Obama will again take two oaths of office:  one in private and another in public.

The government has an excuse:  ”He’s planning a private oath at the White House on Jan. 20, when the Constitution requires that his second term begin. But since presidential inaugurations are not traditionally on Sundays, his public swearing-in is scheduled Jan. 21.”

The excuse seems plausible.  The show must go on.  For the sake of “show biz” (the Inauguration Ceremony) Obama will take a second oath so all the peons can see him do so on January 21st, even though he “actually” took the oath on the 20th. .

But I am freakin’ amazed.  Again, Obama is taking two oaths of office–one in private; one in public; one on each of two separate days.  I’d very much like to see the exact words taken in his “private” oath of office.

Dayham!

 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Image via Wikipedia

Under the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the term “The State” is intended to signify any one of the 50 States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas” or “The State of Florida”).  The term “this state,” on the other hand, is intended to signify administrative districts (like “TX” or “FL”) of a singular territory that spans the entire U.S..   (For more insight into this hypothesis, see, “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/#more-7133).

According to the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the federal gov-co has supplanted “The States” of the Union with the administrative districts of a singular national territory.  It is believed that the feds caused this change because, under Article 1 of the federal Constitution, Congress has limited and enumerated powers with regard to “The States” of the Union, but under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories.

 

Certification of “Foreign Law” vs. Verification

Image via Wikipedia

In A.D. 1804, in the case of Church vs. Hubbart, the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with an issue of recognizing “foreign law” (of Portugal) and laid down some principles concerning what constitutes proper evidence of “foreign law”.  Unsworn “certification” of foreign law was not enough.  For a foreign law to introduced as evidence, somebody had to verify its validity under oath.