yuzuru wrote: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.

In the case of horary astrology it is most often not the moment of the client having a question that is taken to cast the chart, but the moment the question is declared before the astrologer. More often than not it is at this latter moment that the question appears within the correct frame.

While we currently are discussing the appointment of the presidency under the mundane section, we have to remember that this issue does not move or behave in the same way as the occurance of an earthquake. The initiation of a president is divided into several steps and at one point an official declaration or 'oath' has to be made on the part of the president elect. As tradition has it, this declaration is now made before and witnessed by the people, although presidents have and may be sworn in different fashions and under various circumstances. An official event of such global interest as the presidental inaguration will necessarily be subject to stage management, but does this differ to a football fixture? Neither the inaguration of the president or the football fixture is a sporadic event in the same manner as when the day is overthrown by the enemy unexpectedly arriving at your doorstep.

Hello Yuzuru,

Perhaps my previous post was too strident. Still I consider the position suggested by Granny's lawyer contact is not irrational. The legal reality may be ambiguous and open to interpretation. However, if you work with legal concepts a lot you find this kind of thing occuring frequently.

I agree with Tom that this wedding analogy used by Andrew and yourself is really spurious to the question at hand. Lets put it to rest please its not relevant here.

Moreover as you state this is a question of Constitutional law not astrology. I confess to having no formal training in this area. Its a fact that even with a written constitution certain issues are often left vague. Thankfully, this matter has never had to be tested in the Supreme Court.

''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 !''

Does this really strenghthen your point or weaken it?
You have been the one insisting on timing being the only important factor while others have indicated this has to be combined with taking the oath of office. Still I accept we are in a legally ambiguous period from 11.58 until noon!

Or are we ? I think not. The crucial difference between the office of Vice President and the President is that there is a constitutional requirement for a President to take the oath of office. Although the Vice President does now do this it is not legally required. Still, it seems to have a long tradition behind it nonetheless.

Here is more on the Presidential oath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_of ... ted_States

Interestingly both Obama and the Chief Justice botched the oath. Is it still valid?

My view is that a person could not practically exercise the office of President until they have taken the oath of office.

Even if you are right and de facto power shifted to Obama at 12.00 noon I would still consider the 12.05 time highly significant.

As far as the whole world is concerned Barack Obama become President at 12.05 EST. There is a long tradition of taking moments of public annoucements/recognition as the key moment. For example the chart commonly used for the PRC is the annoucement by Mao on the Radio. This was some time after the Chinese Communists sezed de facto power. Nicholas Campion uses many such moments as key times for mundane charts. Similarly, Princess Elizabeth acceded to the British Throne on the death of her Father but the key chart for her reign is not when de facto authority passed to her but her coronation ceremony when she was publicly crowned as Queen.

Every President going back to George Washington has been inaugurated in public. In the event of assaination circumstances must be different. Still the oath of office has been taken on all occasions by the VP following a Presidential assassination ie Abraham Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. JFK wasn't just following a ceremonial tradition to keep Kennedy's widow happy. Without the oath JFK has no legal authority to make decisions as President.

I will leave the constitutional lawyers to slug out the arguments about 12.00 noon versus 12.05 in terms of actual Presidential power. I will be using the 12.05 time as the key moment of the inauguration in terms of astrological significance.

Does this really strenghthen your point or weaken it? You have been the one insisting on timing being the only important factor while others have indicated this has to be combined with taking the oath of office.

Hopefully it strengths it ! :-P

No, I have been the one insisting that an oath is a symbolic factor and so it not important to the beginning of the term. It is only logical that, if an oath is the real moment of the beginnning of the term, then an oath couldn?t be done before noon.

There is a long tradition of taking moments of public annoucements/recognition as the key moment.

I don?t want to cause any polemics around here, but I don?t accept Campion as an authority. To modern astrologers it can be a very important argument, but to me his opinions don?t say much, as I disagree of almost everything he said.

I will leave the constitutional lawyers to slug out the arguments about 12.00 noon versus 12.05. I will be using the 12.05 time as the key moment of the inauguration.

As I said before, there is no real difference between using a noon and a 12:05 pm chart, so in this points it is all very academic.

The problem would be with in other points, like so many astrologers claiming that Obama should have postponed the ceremony. Although this is even more hypothetical, that Obama would take astrology as an important element of his presidency.

Anyway I have seen one time a discussion about "what is the real time of a marriage" to reach more than 100 posts, a few flames now and then, and no real conclusion, so I am not holding my breath waiting that we will reach a common ground :-)

Besides that I would like to add that, in spite of what is the real moment of inauguration, that I don?t think it will be very useful, as in general astrologers don?t know how to judge mundane charts. One can see this in the discussion before the election, how many only saw what they wanted. Probably we will see this again.

To Andrew: I don?t know if I understood your post, but one interesting thing to me, is that the football charts seem to respond to the official time (like 3 pm) rather than the "first kick" moment, that would seem more logical at first look. Curious :-)

There is always a top Official who is kept away from the Inaugeral event in case of extreme need, and today was no exception, Including some justice official to give the oath in case of emergency, ergo we would not have been without leadership in case of emergency, the oath is very very short, one need not worry that they dont have time to say it.

I wonder who got the short straw today? Not sure that is the contest you want to win!

Granny

You are obviously entited to your astrological opinion of Campion and the ability ( or lack) of other astrologers to judge mundane charts. I have taken a new year resolution not to malign practising astrologers in public so I will not comment on that issue.

As you state the times are not greatly apart.

Still you do still insist 12.00 noon is the correct time. How do you square that with the US constitution requiring the oath/affirmation of office to be taken by the new President? This is a legal mandatory requirement. You have never really dealt with that basic legal point in your posts.

The oath /affirmation is not as you suggest just some meaningless 'flashy' ceremony but rather a crucial legal procedure before the newly elected President can exercise the powers of their office.

I would therefore suggest the 12.05 time is both legally and symbolically the logical time to cast a chart for Obama's Presidency.

Hi, Mark
I think this discussion is starting to get repetitive.
I already adressed this point when I commented on the fact that the oath could have been taken before the term began.
So, if you don?t agree, please feel free to not, as I think that I already made my point, and anyone interested can agree with me or not, so I don?t need to "insist" in anything, everyone can make their own mind and I really don?t need to convince anybody.

Best regards

A study of John Kennedy's taking of the oath vs noon might provide an answer. Kennedy took the oath at 12:51 pm, EST, Jan 20, 1961 in Washington, D.C., he was assassinated at 12:30 pm, CST, on Nov 22, 1963 in Dallas, TX.

MarkC wrote:I agree with Tom that this wedding analogy used by Andrew and yourself is really spurious to the question at hand. Lets put it to rest please its not relevant here.

I did apply an election chart to my own Wedding to foreshaddow a future change in life and fortune beyond imagination.

There may be a tendency to get lost in the theory. Let's not forget to do the astrology. Thank you, unique_astrology, for providing relevant data!

Andrew Bevan wrote: I did apply an election chart to my own Wedding to foreshaddow a future change in life and fortune beyond imagination. '

If so, you should tell if marriage was succesfull or not....

as every woman, I'm more interested in love more than war or presidents, but I think men cannot understand

margherita

Re. applying an election chart for the moment of entering marriage

Gjiada wrote:If so, you should tell if marriage was succesfull or not....

Or the fruits of that marriage... In the same way as an inaguartion chart may be examined to discover the visions and fruits of a presidency.

I'll just pop my head above the turret for a minute and say that five minutes one way or another, may not make much of a difference, unless the moon was in very late degrees or the ascendant about to change. Not having looked at a chart yet, I don't know.

Having said that, a pundit on television had this to say (and I'll paraphrase): that he found it interesting that for five minutes, Joe Biden was Bush's vice president.

So this shows, possibly, that the ritual itself is seen, in the eyes of the public, as the 'real' reckoning of the ascent of a President, no matter what the law has to say...

GH

Gunhilde wrote:I'll just pop my head above the turret for a minute and say that five minutes one way or another, may not make much of a difference, unless the moon was in very late degrees or the ascendant about to change. Not having looked at a chart yet, I don't know.

Moon changes sign from Scorpio to Sagittarius at 12:30 according my Solar Fire.

And about Ascendant for 12:00 we have 14.03 Taurus, for 12:05 15.46 Taurus, and 12:06 16.06 Taurus.
In the first case Ascendant is in Mercury terms, then in Jupiter ones.

But if we rectify a little with images of stars I prefer the 16th degree, i.e. 12:05.

In fact from Book of Paranatellonta (Vat. Reg. 1283): A man sitting on a donkey arises with the 16th degree. Who is born in this degree will be a knight ready to forgive and doing good for people.

And the donkey is the Democrats' animal, isn'it?
Margherita