What was the specific mistake from the original oath taken by President Obama on inauguration day?

It was a historic event when President Obama was inaugurated, but there was a slight mishap when Chief Justice Roberts incorrectly recited the oath to President Obama, and in turn, Obama incorrectly recited it himself. Let's talk specifically about the oath and what went wrong.

In Article II, Sec.1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that an incoming president recite an oath and a portion of that oath that's important is that the president must state that he or she "will faithfully execute Office of the President of the United States.

Alternatively, Chief Justice Roberts recited an oath that said the president "will execute the Office of the President of the United States faithfully."

Is the oath important?
In short, rather than the word faithfully being at the front of that clause, it was at the end. Certainly the oath has significance and is symbolic but the question is does it have any legal importance?

  To view our videos, you need to
enable JavaScript. Learn how.
install Adobe Flash 9 or above. Install now.

Then come back here and refresh the page.

The 20th Amendment, which was passed in 1933, and it addresses the transfer of power from the president and the vice president to their successors at noon. But alternatively, there's language in the U.S. Constitution that states that "… before the president enter on the Execution of his office he must take the Oath."

So there's an argument that exists that before the president can actually wield or exercise his presidential power he's required to take the oath. Others argue that the 1933, 20th ironed out those ambiguous wrinkles and the transfer of power happens smoothly at noon regardless of whether the president takes his oath.

It's really an academic debate because presidents always take the oath anyway, but this was the first time a president stated the oath incorrectly. There is no case law regarding this, so it has created friendly debate among legal scholars.

Why did President Obama take the oath a second time?

Whether they needed to or not is up for debate, but Gregory Craig, White House legal counsel summed it up best in stating: "The oath appears in the Constitution itself, and out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

Most speculate that the oath was re-administered to avoid dealing with a series of costly, frivolous lawsuits challenging the validity of executive orders on the grounds that President Obama lacked authority to issue the orders because he never took the proper oath of office.

Disclaimer
The material provided in The Common Law is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute, nor is it a substitute for, legal advice. For advice on your specific facts and circumstances, consult an attorney directly.