Just sharing some thoughts interested in others, quotes all from Anne Wright page

At noon in Washington DC on 20 January

mars is aligned with Sheliak - the tortoise star- origin of Lyre
from Ann Wright page

Influences: "According to Ptolemy Lyra (a musical instrument) is like Venus and Mercury. It is said to give an harmonious, poetical and developed nature, fond of music and apt in science and art, but inclined to theft. By the Kabalists it is associated with the Hebrew letter Daleth and the 4th Tarot Trump, The Emperor". [Robson*, p.51.]

And Venus is trying very hard to conj/align with Uranus, just a couple degrees apart and oppose Saturn.. soft change? beautiful change? certainly a lot of women in the upper echelons of the new government cabinet and other choices it seems? (and of course some of us are pre-disposed to seeing this as a beautiful change)

You know, would it hurt to start the ceeremony just a few minutes late? I mean really that late scorpio moon would be nicer as an early Sag moon dont you think? 12:30 makes it 00 Sag. well maybe some traffic or something will slow things down. one might hope.

Saturn aligned with Denebola at 21 Virgo

The 'Tail of the Lion' has a Uranian nature and it is supposed that, in mundane horoscopes, major catastrophes are triggered off by it. Depending on the position and aspect to other stellar bodies in a personal cosmogram, either preferment or fall are credited to this star. Found on the Ascendant and especially in company with Mercury, a quarrelsome nature, with a liking for legal action is attributed to Denebola. It could also mean that this star is the cause of very exciting events. Badly placed in a map, with Mercury or Uranus, mental diseases - and those mostly incurable ones - are indicated. Fine aspects however, will further work connected with matters of reform and progress. [Fixed Stars and Their Interpretation, Elsbeth Ebertin, 1928, p.56.]

since it is setting I wonder if that fortells the ending of whining criticism and troubles?

how funny that tails are so prominent in thsi chart, Saturn iw with Lions tail, Neptune is with Caps Tail,

With Neptune: Easily influenced, psychic ability, superstitious, reserved, economical, some gain through speculation, many enemies, bad early environment leaving lasting impression, morose and melancholy at end of life, accidents, death in a fit or by assassination. [Robson*, p.160.]

of course that is in a personal chart but I wonder if it might signal the economic recovery?

Jupiter at 3 Aqu 32 is aligned with Geidi Prima

in a natal chart

With Jupiter: Government position, preferment in law or Church, marriage abroad, favorable for gain and inheritance. [Robson*, p.168.]

maybe translated to mundane, marriage abroad might be successful international relations? Government position certainly makes sense!

Sun aligned with Tarazed a star in the back of the eagle,

Legend: Originally called Vultur Volans or the Flying Grype, Aquila represents the Eagle, thought to be Jupiter himself, that carried Ganymedes to heaven (see Aquarius). [Robson*, p.29.]

Influences: According to Ptolemy the influence of Aquila is similar to that of Mars and Jupiter. It is said to give great imagination, strong passions, indomitable will, a dominating character, influence over others, clairvoyance, a keen penetrating mind and ability for chemical research. It has always been associated with the sign Scorpio, and by the Kabalists with the Hebrew letter Vau and the 6th Tarot Trump "The Lovers." [Robson*, p.29.]

and manilius says -

"The Eagle, soars to the heights, the bird of mighty Jupiter carrying thunderbolts, it is a bird worthy of Jupiter and the sky, which it furnishes with awful armaments. This bird brings back the thunderbolts which Jupiter has flung and fights in the service of heaven. He that is born on earth in the hour of its rising, will grow up bent on spoil and plunder, won even with bloodshed; he will draw no line between peace and war, between citizen and foe, and when he is short of men to kill he will engage in butchery of beast. He is a law unto himself, and rushes violently wherever his fancy takes him; in his eyes to show contempt for everything merits praise. Yet, should perchance his aggressiveness be enlisted in a righteous cause, depravity will turn into virtue, and he will succeed in bringing wars to a conclusion and enriching his country with glorious triumphs. And, since the Eagle does not wield, but supplies weapons, seeing that it brings back and restores to Jupiter the fires and bolts he has hurled, in time of war such a man will be the aide of a king or of some mighty general, and his strength will render them important service". [Astronomica, Manilius, 1st century AD, book 5, p.341.]

Mercury is also here Conj Sun and Retrograde (time of reflection? the ceremony itself certainly.) words to match the deeds?

uranus rising in pises- creative changes
Pluto is at 1 cap 56 - aligned with the tip of Sag's Arrow - the point of change I suppose.
anyway just thought I'd share some thoughts.

G.

Beth -- not to worry about late v/o/c scorpio moon -- look at Obama's MC -- plus the Change in signs that day (O will have a lunar return early evening) resonate with the "Change" motif in campaign

there is that,

I was looking at it this time around as an independent chart. because I think I've been looking to much at the natal chart of Obama

Another thing that I think is very striking is the strong 4 quadrant slant of the chart. its just an interesting chart I admit, well to me at least!

G

Hi, Andrew
the ceremony is NOT important. The power will shift at noon exactly, even if the ceremony is not completely done. If Aliens invade at 12:01, Obama is commander in chief, and secret service will adress him as Mr President, the ceremony is only formal, and will be completed later.

Why do you think that? as far as I know he must swear in to be president.

even under emergency situations they grab a judge and a bible and swear em in.

Granny

Hi, granny
there is the ceremonial act, and you may use it as the inauguration, but as far as I know, Obama will be president at noon, despite any accidents, problems, or ceremony. He will be president even if he didn?t say the "I do".

If the aliens attack at 12:01, he will take the oath in the Air force one, even with the pilot holding the bible. But that doesn?t make the pilot with the authority to give him powers of presidency.

In fact I believe that there is nothing in the US constitution that mandates a president to take the oath. It is just a ceremony, not a real act of empowerment. His powers were given when he won the elections, at noon he begins his mandate, and the ceremony can be at any time.

As well as Bush: he began his mandate 8 years ago, and it will terminate his mandate at 12:00. If at exactly 12:01 Obama is murdered, Obama?s vice is going to president, not Bush.

Hello, Yuzuru--

I am not a scholar of the U.S. Constitution or even a lawyer, but I do know a little bit about U.S. history, so I wish to respond, with all due respect, to the following comment:

In fact I believe that there is nothing in the US constitution that mandates a president to take the oath. It is just a ceremony, not a real act of empowerment.

The Constitution does mandate the incoming U.S. president take the Oath of Office, in Article II, Clause 8:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"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."

The Oath of Office was written into the Constitution by the original framers. Although the date and place of taking oath have changed, every president has to say these words in order to be president. To me, the wording clearly suggests that the president-elect cannot undertake the "Execution of his Office" (i.e., become president) without first taking the oath--it is more than ceremony.

Consequently, I do think that the timing of the oath is important astrologically, because it does mark the legal beginning of the presidency.

Thanks for the clarification
"Consequently, I do think that the timing of the oath is important astrologically, because it does mark the legal beginning of the presidency."

Ok, I don?t agree, but I would be repeating myself. Anyway, the difference will be always small, and kind of "academics". If anybody is really interested in this take, they can take the empirical route and try both ways.

The presidency builds upon a constitutional vision and to this vision and collection of aspirations there is connected a ritual. There is nothing wrong in erecting a chart for the moment that this ritual is held to get a view of these aspirations and their potential for success. I have no problem with an inaguration chart.

The chart for a football match is cast for the moment the game starts, not for the moment when the goals are scored or the final whistle. If an aeroplane is involved in an accident, a chart is cast not only for the moment of the accident, but also for the moment when the plane departed or set off.

It is also ordinary to pay attention to the preceeding syzygy or also other major ingresses leading up to events or initiations of such magnitude as the presidency of the United States of America. If anyone has views upon the inaguration chart or wishes to make a different approach, both views will be welcome for consideration at the mundane section.

Teacher is right, but there is always another side to the story. The 20th Amendment says:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January ... of the years in which such terms would have ended ... and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

So the new term begins at noon regardless of the oath of office. Although the 20th amendment does not nullify Article II section 8, it does mean that if the President-elect is not sworn in, he is still President come noon time on January 20th of the appropriate year.

When John Kennedy was killed, there was, understandably, some confusion about the role of the Vice President and the swearing in. Since it was not known if Kennedy's murder was part of a larger plot or even an invasion, some wanted to get LBJ out of Texas quickly and secretly. Most agreed that Lyndon Johnson did not need to be sworn in order to become President. Johnson, however insisted on the ceremony and insisted that Jacqueline Kennedy be present and photographed at the ceremony in order to symbolize an orderly transfer of power. He understood the importance of the oath, but the country was never, not for a moment, without a President.

The inauguration chart might have some value, but the angles are always very close to the same for every inauguration. So the angles rulers are always the same. The Sun is always the same (in detriment at the top of the chart). I suppose that leaves aspects to angles that differentiates one administration from the other.

Tom

LBJ was right, not just correct, it is not a mere formality, it is the essence of the office. IMO. He would certainly have taken a lot of flak had he not insisted on doing it right.

And like a wedding ceremony, isn't it the I Do's that count?

Granny

I agree with Granny Skot. The Oath is the essence of the office of the president. Why would the Framers have put the Oath in the Constitution if it weren?t meant as a requirement of the office? The Constitution is a legally binding document.

Our elected leaders have to abide by our laws. They can?t just ?take over,? even at a pre-appointed time. Dictators do that kind of thing, but a president has to be installed before he can act as the president. He has to agree to be legally bound by the Constitution. That?s what he?s doing when he takes the Oath. None of this empty ceremony--it?s a legal transaction.

The 20th amendment specifies when presidential terms begin and end--it is talking about the dates on the calendar. It does not say when someone is empowered to act as the President. The term of an office and the power to exercise an office are completely different matters! It is possible, for example, to have the clock ticking on a term of office for an elected official, without someone holding the office and exercising the powers. Take Obama?s recently vacated senate seat--until the uproar over the legality of Burris? appointment was settled, there was no one acting as the junior senator from Illinois. But the term-clock was still ticking.

The primary purpose of the 20th Amendment was to shorten the time between the election and the inauguration. Based on my understanding of U.S. history, this amendment doesn?t deal with the powers of the presidency per se. In other words, the 20th Amendment doesn?t say that president-elect assumes the powers of the president at noon on January 20th. It says only that the new presidential term begins at that time.

Taking the Oath is what makes the president-elect the president. He becomes president at that moment.