If Feingold wins in 2008...

[nini2287]

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

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Good question, actually.

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'm sure he would.

[TexasGurl]

It's not required just a quaint tradition.

[PBrunsel]

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

[nini2287]

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?

[Smash255]

...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

[YRABNNRM]

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

Was it an actual copy?

[PBrunsel]

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."

[Platypus]

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?

[kashifsakhan]

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

[afleitch]

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?

[Frodo]

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. 

[afleitch]

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

[PBrunsel]

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.

[jerusalemcar5]

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.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

How is being sworn in on the Bible unconstitutional?

[Platypus]

The argument is good old C+S.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

[jerusalemcar5]

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.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.)