Barack Obama Sworn In As 44th President of the US

Just before noon today, Eastern time, Barack Obama was sworn in before the US Capitol building as the 44th President of the United States (Whitehouse.gov has already been updated to reflect the new President), and offered an inaugural address which outlined some of the challenges that the country currently faces, both within the country's borders and abroad. Obama's election has been called "a civil rights triumph," and his candidacy has inspired perhaps the most visible political involvement of young voters of any candidate since John Kennedy. Here's your chance to discuss the newest occupant of the White House and what you'd like to see happen over the course of his presidency.

Comments

Time

[Anonymous Coward]

He was actually sworn in shortly after noon, although he was President at exactly noon anyway.

Re:Time

[timster]

Not really... the Constitution requires the incoming President to take the oath "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office". The exact wording of the oath is also stated.

Which makes it all the more surprising that Mr. Strict Constructionist John Roberts would mess it up, but there you go.

Re:Time

[Palshife]

Read closely. "He" in your excerpt refers to the President, not the President-elect. The oath is something the President must make after his term begins.

Also, check out section 1 of the 20th Amendment. "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

President Obama's term started at noon, before he took the oath of office, as it should be.

Re:Time

[osu-neko]

It's not cognitive dissonance when you don't believe urban legends.

Now it seems those closely detailed stories were largely bunk. Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative agency, "had found no damage to the offices of the White House's East or West Wings or EOB" and that Bush's own representatives had reported "there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration."

Source.

Re:Time

[hedwards]

The W keys incident didn't happen. There was no conspiracy to remove W keys from keyboards. There may have been a couple, but it was definitely not $4k worth of damages.

And neither did the rest of that. It was bunk that was started as a joke column, which suddenly gained a life of its own. Sort of like Bill Gates and the 640kb or Al Gore and the invention of the internet. Neither Gates nor Gore ever actually made the attributed statement.

The White House vandal scandal that wasn't

Or from W himself at: George W. Bush, Clinton defender

Whether or not you care to admit it, there was no massive scale vandalism or vast Left wing conspiracy here. It's just a few people are too obtuse to admit that maybe it didn't happen.

Re:Time

[DragonWriter]

How does Washington to Adams even qualify as a "transition"? That's as much a transition as the "transition" from Reagan to Bush Sr. was, in every sense (Adams was Washington's vice president, for one).

Uh, no. They aren't really analogous at all. Do remember that for quite some time after the Constitution was established, the Vice President was the second place contender in the Presidential election, not someone who ran and was elected with the President. So Adams, as Washington's Vice President, had a very different relationship to Washington than Bush, as Reagan's VP, had to Reagan.

The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".

But, by your own argument about the 1797 transition, that should have been an easy transition, just like Reagan->Bush, simply because Jefferson was Adams' Vice President.

Of course, the "but he was his predecessors VP, so it doesn't count" argument doesn't apply to the 1801 transition for the same reason it doesn't apply to the 1797 transition.

Re:Time

[Logic and Reason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

Re:Time

[hey!]

Well, first let me start off by saying you are exactly right in saying George W. Bush's administration was exemplary when it came to helping the transition to Obama.

However, you may not be aware that many if not all of the stories of Clinton adminsitration vandalism were fabricated. The GSA, which administers the resources in question, found no evidence for any of the allegations. Likewise, the GAO, a congressional agency, initially found no support for any of the allegations. It reopened its investigation under political pressure from Bob Barr, and eventually revised its opinion to $15,000, not $250,000.

Furthermore, even this lower figure is based on Bush staff recollections. For example, there is no actual documentation that the "historic doorknobs" bearing the presidential seal actually existed; in fact there was no mention of these anywhere until after the investigation was reopened by the Republican Congress.

But of course, that is not proof that such doorknobs didn't exist, or that Clinton staffers didn't steal them. It just means even the $15,000 figure is hard to document. And there is no evidence at all for stories like the Clinton staffers defecating on desks. Since this would have to have been cleaned up, it certainly would have left a paper trail.

Make of that what you will, but even the Republican's own investigation showed that the claims were at the very least wildly exaggerated.

Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[Anonymous Coward]

After first cutting off Obama, he forgets to say "faithfully" in the pledge, then tacks it onto the end of the clause. Obama clearly recognizes the screwup and pauses where "faithfully" is supposed to go, letting Roberts correct himself. Roberts stumbles, realizing his mistake. Corrects it, sort of. Then Obama continues with Roberts' original phrasing.

To anyone not overly familiar with Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, it looked like Obama was confused- or stumbled, but he was just in shock to hear Roberts put things out of order.

Nice one there, Roberts.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[morgan_greywolf]

To anyone not overly familiar with ... the Constitution

Yep. That would be Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Glad to know it wasn't an imposter up there.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[LionMage]

No, he's complaining that the Drudge Report, a conservative blog that gets noticed by a lot of higher-profile conservatives, is reporting the story wrong. Four years from now (or eight, depending), this issue will probably be raised again. When that happens, which version of history are people going to listen to and believe?

In fairness to the Drudge Report and the Time live blog, it seems that a correction (of sorts) has been issued:

James Poniewozik - 1:00 p.m.: Drudge now backpedaling: "Obama AND CHIEF JUSTICE flub oath..."

If He Keeps His Promises, It Should!

[eldavojohn]

Go to Obama/Biden's issues site and flip through the plans. There are a few measurable details here and there on this site. Like his statement about Iraq:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 â" more than 7 years after the war began.

He better have a really good reason for not starting to redeploy brigades from Iraq with an end goal of 16 months. A really good reason.

For us tech minded geeks, his fact sheet--including:

Protect the Openness of the Internet

And if I don't see him take the steps he talks about in that plan, I'm going to quickly realize he's just another lying politician. Here's another point that needs to be reprinted all over:

Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation's progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information--all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest. An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens. Technology-enabled citizen participation has already produced ideas driving Obama's campaign and its vision for how technology can help connect government to its citizens and engage citizens in a democracy. Barack Obama will use the most current technological tools available to make government less beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists and promote citizen participation in government decision-making. Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government by:

• Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.
• Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.
• Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
• Restoring the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials.
• Lifting the veil from secret de

Full text of the inaugural speech...

[Anonymusing]

...is available here (unlike the odd "preview" of the speech noted in the /. text).

Re:America,

[spectro]

o Issue at least one executive order to strike down one of the myriad unconstitutional laws violating the bill of rights

Imho he can't do that, he can veto before signing but once it becomes law of the land only either the Supreme Court or Congress can do anything about it.

o Issue at least one executive order to have a supreme court judge arrested ... (snip)
o Issue at least one executive order to have a congressman arrested .. (snip)

Have you heard about "separation of powers"? The President can't do anything against the other two powers, they are independent. I believe the procedure in the constitution is called impeachment. That would not have stop Dick Cheney from trying thought :-p

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[Uberbah]

Aside from the fact that it's paid for with private donations, dumbfuck, millions of people didn't show up because the inauguration was a big event. It was a big event because millions of people wanted to show up. You know, Constitutional rights and all (freedom of assembly).

And even then the $170 figure isn't based on fact, but guestimations. There's also the fact that the cost of this inauguration, with security, is being fallaciously compared to the cost of Bush's inaguration, without security.

Re:America,

[novakyu]

Not really. Dark fiber uses anti-photons to work. ...

Actually, photons are their own antiparticles (which is why photon number isn't conserved and you can have reactions like pair production, given that there is a third body to carry away extra momentum)

Those old Dubya lies

[ed]

Those "Clinton Staffers trashed the White House" were lies then ands are lies now..

The General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative agency, "had found no damage to the offices of the White House's East or West Wings or EOB" and that Bush's own representatives had reported "there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration."

Re:But!

[wanax]

Robert Gates (Sec. of Defense) was deliberately absent from the ceremony to preserve the line of succession.