Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 08:11:41 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  If Feingold wins in 2008...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: If Feingold wins in 2008...  (Read 15091 times)
nini2287
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6644


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

P

View Profile
« on: February 21, 2006, 02:58:27 am »
Ignore

...would he be sworn in on the Bible?
Logged


Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29656
United States
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2006, 10:38:50 am »
Ignore

Good question, actually.
Logged

n/c
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2006, 11:20:03 am »
Ignore

Quote from: constitution
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."

No mention of any bibles.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2006, 12:31:35 pm »
Ignore

I'm sure he would.
Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
TexasGurl
texasgurl24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8334
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -9.57, S: -7.91

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2006, 01:13:58 pm »
Ignore

It's not required just a quaint tradition.
Logged

PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2006, 06:06:59 pm »
Ignore

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
nini2287
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6644


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2006, 01:15:14 am »
Ignore

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was there any reason for using the Constitution instead of the Bible with Pierce?
Logged


Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14273


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2006, 02:04:56 am »
Ignore

...would he be sworn in on the Bible?

Hopefully we get to find out.  The Constitution idea would actually be a real good fit for Feingold however
Logged

YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10796
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2006, 02:51:28 pm »
Ignore

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was it an actual copy?
Logged
PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2006, 05:39:39 pm »
Ignore

Only Franklin Pierce was ever sworn in on the U.S. Constitution.

Was there any reason for using the Constitution instead of the Bible with Pierce?

He blamed God for the recent death of his son Benny. It had nothing to do with "seperation of Church and State."
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21445
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2006, 04:06:45 am »
Ignore

couldn't they get a bible and hjust white-out the new testament?

Or, as a campaign pledge to ensure 90% black support, black them out instead?
Logged

kashifsakhan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 515
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2006, 11:20:56 am »
Ignore

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21777


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2006, 01:12:28 pm »
Ignore

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?


He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps? Funnily enough was Johnson not sworn in on a Catholic mass book on the presidental plane?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2006, 01:14:00 pm by Governor Afleitch »Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13410
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2006, 04:03:50 pm »
Ignore

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?


He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps?

Isn't the Torah nothing more than the Old Testament section of the Holy Bible?  If so, then the Bible would represent the combined traditions of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, and technically the Torah would already be incorporated into it in the form of the Old Testament. 

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21777


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2006, 04:15:13 pm »
Ignore

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 

He may not object of course, but by swearing on the Bible he is swearing on a book that proclaims that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Not that I speak for him, but he would have every right to take objection to that Smiley
Logged

PBrunsel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9626


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2006, 10:19:21 am »
Ignore

Feingold fancies himself a Champion of the Law, so he would be sworn in under the Constitution. Whether he is a Champion of the Law is debatable however.
Logged


"I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
-President Abraham Lincoln, December 1862
jerusalemcar5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2743
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2006, 10:40:53 am »
Ignore

im sure people will think this is a stupid question....but why exactly should feingold not be sworn in on the bible?


He's Jewish.

He could swear on the constitution or even the Torah perhaps?

Isn't the Torah nothing more than the Old Testament section of the Holy Bible?  If so, then the Bible would represent the combined traditions of both the Jewish and Christian faiths, and technically the Torah would already be incorporated into it in the form of the Old Testament. 

Therefore, I do not see any reason why Russ Feingold would find it objectionable to be sworn in on the Holy Bible as tradition dictates. 

The tradition is terrible.  If a Jew became president he would never swear over something that declared Jesus had any relation to G-d.  It would be heresy and would strongly anger the pwerful Jewish lobby and most likely the Israelis.  Besides this, Feingold is an excellent liberal who most likely believe beinbg swown in a religious book to be unconstitutional anyway.  I would be shocked if he was not sworn in some other way.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29656
United States
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2006, 10:42:21 am »
Ignore

How is being sworn in on the Bible unconstitutional?
Logged

n/c
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21445
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2006, 01:26:57 am »
Ignore

The argument is good old C+S.
Logged

Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29656
United States
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2006, 01:29:21 pm »
Ignore

The argument is good old C+S.

No one is swearing to uphold the Bible as law; they are swearing on the Bible to uphold the law.  That's a fairly ridiculous argument.
Logged

n/c
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2006, 06:06:50 pm »
Ignore

It seems to me that swearing in on the Bible is no more merging church and state than praying in the White House.  The fact that one president did not do this tells me that it's entirely voluntary on the part of the president-elect, and is simply a way of expressing that the president-elect is being honest when taking the oath.

Separation of church and state does not mean that politicians are not allowed to be religious.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
jerusalemcar5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2743
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2006, 06:15:59 pm »
Ignore

I kind of forgot about this thread, but I now have a response.  I made a mistake, I take back the unconstitutional part. 

Though I do believe it is more unconstitutional than praying at the White House.  The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.  Praying at the White House, is the business of the people involved.  I just don't think religious objects should be used during state ceremonies.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29656
United States
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2006, 06:17:36 pm »
Ignore

I kind of forgot about this thread, but I now have a response.  I made a mistake, I take back the unconstitutional part. 

Though I do believe it is more unconstitutional than praying at the White House.  The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.  Praying at the White House, is the business of the people involved.  I just don't think religious objects should be used during state ceremonies.

First of all, I appreciate your retraction.  But with all due respect, something is either unconstitutional or it isn't.  Appropriateness is another matter, though, and on that I sympathise with your argument.
Logged

n/c
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2006, 06:18:39 pm »
Ignore

The inauguration is an official ceremony of the state that should have nothing to do with religion.

And it doesn't.  It has the president-elect swear to uphold the Constitution.  The fact that it includes a religious prop does not make it a religious ceremony.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2006, 08:07:18 pm »
Ignore

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901. I suspect that he had to swear himself in to the Presidency suddenly upon McKinley's death; it is possible that no Bible was available. (Roosevelt had no religious objection to using the Bible--he used the book during his second term, and also when he was taking the oath as Governor of New York.)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines