Teacher wrote: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.

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

Can the inaguration be compared to the exchanging of oaths at a Wedding cermony? It is after this point that the groom gets to kiss the bride, even though we suspect he might have practiced in advance. There have probably been a few Runaway Brides down through the years who have deserted from the forthcoming obligations, however, not many President Candidates that have turned round and fled at the question of "I do".

Installing a President?? Makes be think of how I have to click of an agreement to the legal terms of a computor program before I can take it into use and it will work on my machine. The moment of electioning the program must be the moment when I purchased it in the shop.

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

1) This isn't a wedding. It's the assuming of office of the Chief Executive of the United States Government. It doesn't even remotely approach a wedding.

2) No it isn't the "I dos." It's the signing of the marriage certificate by the person performing the ceremony. No signature - no wedding no matter how many I dos.

3) The wording is clear. The term ENDS at Noon and the other term BEGINS at Noon. The term ENDS when the President dies. The next term BEGINS upon the death of the President not upon the administration of the oath.

The language is unambiguous and unmistakable. As for opinions, we are legally entitled to believe the Moon is made of green cheese. if we want to. That doesn't make it true. Obama's term begins at Noon January 20. The Constitution says so and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land no matter what our personal opinion is. Opinions are not facts.

Tom

Yet the 20th amendment in no way overturns Article II.

Ergo the oath must occur.

granny

Well chatted with a few attorneys and came to a few conclusions.

first since No president has assumed the office of the presidency without taking the oath, there is NO pressident for the argument of whether or not the 20th supercedes the Oath. However the fact that even LBJ insissted on taking the oath before assuming command, (had Jackie in the room and had it photographed and disseminated for publication) it is probable that Justices would rule oath over date. reason being, the term may come and go, but a person may not be president until they've been sworn in. That might occur at a time OTHER than on the Term, for instance when a president dies or is removed from office. The TERM and the OFFICE are NOT ONE. So while it definitely ENDS the former Presidency, the Oath begins the Execution of office. though I've emailed a few other constitutional lawyers I know, I think they will agree the oath must be taken before execution of office. though of course Both must occur. Its a one line oath its not like he wouldn't have time on the train if it was rolling in late. You just have to have someone legally able to witness an oath, Judge, notary public, etc... Again Supreme court has not set an opinion because it hasn't come up, no one seems ot want to test that one.

Granny

The discussion is good. It reminds me about the problem of house division and which house system should be selected, or what time should be taken as the correct moment of birth? Is it when the head comes out, the whole child, the first breath or when the navel string is cut. All events are closely related.

Regarding the problem of the correct birthtime: Some children are put to one side because they are thought dead at birth, only to discover that they have begun breathing 20 minutes later, and some astrologers departed from the birthtime all together and started to apply something they called the moment of incarnation that could vary up to an hour from an accurately provided birthtime. Fortunately this method seems to be less in favour the recent years.

In comparison: King Harald V of Norway, born February 21. 1937, took over as King upon the death of his father, Olav V, on January 17.1991, although he had acted in the capacity as a Crown Prince Regent upon his fathers illness since May 31. 1990. King Harald was consecrated in the Nidaros Cathedral, Trondheim, on June 23.1991. These are all important moments taken from the same story. Now in different stories is it possible that we as astrologers could vary our approach as regards to selecting the moment that appeared to be most valid and that turned up as most informative or with the most enlightening story?

I think it is generally assumed to be so that at noon on Jan 20 the president elect become the president, but the proof enough is in the actual charts themselves.

The chart of the inauguration of 2001 was very accurate for the next 4 years, so it thus goes that this upcoming inaug chart will be accurate as well.

The chart, from a Vedic standpoint, starts out hopeful enough, but peters out pretty soon.

Curtis

Considering that the oath is given while Mercury makes his inferior conjunction with the Sun and is cazimi, I think that this is an excellent moment. The Sun and Mercury cast their antiscia from Aquarius to the Moon in Scorpio - signs that indicate 'Change' more than any other. The Moon is Void of Course, but she is likely to perform due to her application to the sextile of the planets whom she in in antiscia with. Mercury does in fact retrograde and come to meet her, but does not depart from cazimi before their aspect is completed. Maybe the US is sort of bankrupt and Void of Course at present (Moon fall and VOC in Scorpio), but the inaguration chart would suggest a good chance of turning things in a new direction.

Welcome to the forum, Curtis!

Funny enough I've had a continueing response from my lawyer network and some of the responses are as follows

1) Article 2, section 7 and the 20th amendment are NOT inconsistent with each other,

2) the 20th amendment does not overturn the article it adds to it to clarify certain lack in article 2

but my favorite response is

3) The country has no president from 12:01 to 12:06 if the President elect doesnt' take his office until 12:07. as my father said on time means 5 minutes early.
(her dad was a marine, he would)

I'm wondering what Chris Warnock would think? I dont think he's a constitutional lawyer, but what the heck, he had to study it to get a lisense at some point. But so far none of the LAWYERS think that you can be president without taking the oath. but I think I started another discussion on a different list with this question!

Granny

Hi, for future reference

Joe biden took his oath at 11:58

Obama at 12:05

according to my watch

You beat me to it! granny

Hi Yuzuru,

Its very rare I find myself disagreeing with you but I think your just wrong on this one.

I agree with previous contrbuters that the oath is a formal requirement before a person becomes President. The technical process seems to be around noon, the president-elect is sworn in by the Chief Justice, using the form mandated in the Constitution that goes like "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 constitiution makes no reference to God in the oath of office.

If the oath of office was a mere technicality why has every President since George Washington taken it? One might argue its the oath thats more crucial than the timing. When John F Kennedy was assasinated Lyndon Johnson was not declared the new President until he was sworn in by the Chief Justice in a plane!

Its an interesting question who is running the country in between noon and the new President taking the oath. Its muddied further as the VP is sworn in before the President. Of course if a catastrophy wipes out the President and Vice President together I believe power passes to the Speaker of the House. So in that limbo period is the country ruled by the new Vice President? Being a constitutional lawyer must have its fun moments!

Hi, MarkC.
I don?t know if I am just plain wrong, but that is my take on this :-)

I believe the major difference is not exactly if the oath is or isn?t a formal requirement or not. I believe the major difference is in whether astrologers choose an "symbolical" or an otherwise not so "flashy" moment in electional astrology.

The marriage status was quoted early, and as Tom, I also believe that the "I do" moment is completely irrelevant. The couple already said "I do" in an early moment before the marriage taking place. But the "I do" seems symbolical and important, so us astrologers generally take this as the "yes" moment. I also did this, but after a little thinking, I reach the conclusion that the real moment is when they sign the contract. The ceremony can be hours or days after that, but the ceremony is a festivity to celebrate two already married people. In western society, two people are married after they sign a contract. It is an legal and social act. In eastern societies the religious ceremony is probably more important, but to us, it is not necessary to have a religious ceremony and it is not legally binding unless there is recognition by the State.

If the oath of office is a mere technicality why has every President since George Washington done it?

As it was said before, because it is in the constitution that he has to.
As Tom said, the necessity of a sworn was not clear at the moment of the assassination, but it was used to keep the appearance of a orderly process:

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.

Why was Jacqueline present ? First ladies don?t have any take on their husband?s presidencies. Again, the symbolic take, the ceremonial, is used because of its power, but it doesn?t necessarily mean anything.

Granny was kind enought to ask for advice for another field, a constitutional lawyer, but I still don?t feel that the question is settled because he said so. People have visions that are dependent of their particular fields. And, after all, we never saw a president dying in the moment of the possession, so it is all very hypothetical !

Let?s see the position of Granny?s lawyer. If he is right, and I am wrong, there is no president in the US from 12am to 12:05. But if we asked a member of the secret service, in the case of a nuclear war, which president he would save, it is an obvious choice, Bush?s term is already finished. Logic says that he should save Obama. If there is someone who would have to decide, in Air force one, if should press or not the button, would be Obama. If time was of importance, I do not have any doubt that no one would care about an oath.

Let me give a last argument that troubles me. Notice that Joe Biden took the oath BEFORE noon. If the oath is the really important factor in a term, this should be confusing, because Joe Biden took his oath while Bush was still the president of USA !

So, if Granny?s lawyer is right, from 12.00 to 1.05 there was no president of USA, but there was a vice president, Joe Biden. And from 11:58 to 12:00 we had two vice presidents, according to this reasoning.

But, if we allow the principle that Joe Biden took the oath before he was a vice president (which started at noon), it is only logical that Obama also could have took the oath at a prior time, e.g. at the time when he was recognized as president. Why not take the oath before his term begins ?

Because it is better to give the people the symbols that show them that the term is changing !

So, my view is still that, if you can take an oath at any time before your presidency begins, it is not logical to say that your term only begins after you take an oath. It is just a symbolical moment to show the people that things are happening. But as it is usual in politics, the real decision has already happened.

Best regards