Man, boy do Billy boy and Doubleya look nervous as they look on....
Has to be intentional.
I dunno. I remember there being a big kerfufffle in some circles when this happened, like, "how come he didn't have his hand on the Bible????"
But the hand on the bible was, if I recall, a 'tradition' first instituted by Washington, and is not actually a legally necessary part of the oath. I mean, all the office bearers who make a similar oath, to uphold and protect the constitution, most of them never have a hand on the Bible.
German dude's assertion is that not having his hand on the Bible means it wasn't a real oath. BUT, the truth is, as I understand it, that its NOT that part that makes it a legal and binding oath, but the swearing of the oath itself, as administered.
In Washington's case, the oath was apparently administered by Robert R. Livingston, the Chancellor of New York.
It's also possible that the Bible was ready (Melania wasn't there) when Roberts began administering the oath.
One always has to factor-in alternative explanations and give them objective weight, lest one simply be led down the path of confirmation bias.
It's an interesting point - the non-Bible swear - but from a legal and constitutional stand point, its NOT the Bible swear that makes it a real oath, but rather the fact that the person says it.
Constitution Article II, Section 1: βBefore he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: βI 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.ββ
Wasn't the point that he was CIC and NOT holding office of the President? So technically he would need to be re-sworn in to enter "Execution of his Office"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g14ts0KYa98
I wanted to check myself. Melania got there just as he started. You can see the Bible clearly with no hand upon it. Has to be intentional.
Man, boy do Billy boy and Doubleya look nervous as they look on....
I dunno. I remember there being a big kerfufffle in some circles when this happened, like, "how come he didn't have his hand on the Bible????"
But the hand on the bible was, if I recall, a 'tradition' first instituted by Washington, and is not actually a legally necessary part of the oath. I mean, all the office bearers who make a similar oath, to uphold and protect the constitution, most of them never have a hand on the Bible.
German dude's assertion is that not having his hand on the Bible means it wasn't a real oath. BUT, the truth is, as I understand it, that its NOT that part that makes it a legal and binding oath, but the swearing of the oath itself, as administered.
In Washington's case, the oath was apparently administered by Robert R. Livingston, the Chancellor of New York.
It's also possible that the Bible was ready (Melania wasn't there) when Roberts began administering the oath.
One always has to factor-in alternative explanations and give them objective weight, lest one simply be led down the path of confirmation bias.
It's an interesting point - the non-Bible swear - but from a legal and constitutional stand point, its NOT the Bible swear that makes it a real oath, but rather the fact that the person says it.
Constitution Article II, Section 1: βBefore he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: βI 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.ββ
Wasn't the point that he was CIC and NOT holding office of the President? So technically he would need to be re-sworn in to enter "Execution of his Office"