If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Barack Obama will match FDR's record of having been sworn in four times-SEE ? I KNEW he had a secret plan to cancel the next election and become dictator-you all called me crazy but-*reads the article* Oh. Nevermind   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, obama, FDR, Chief Justice of the United States, Evan Vucci, tax and spend, Jefferson Davis, journalism school, George H. W. Bush  
•       •       •

3620 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2012 at 12:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 11:27:55 AM  
Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.
 
2012-12-13 12:01:29 PM  
cdn.styleforum.net
 
2012-12-13 12:03:33 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


You have clearly studied it out. Thank you for keeping us infromed.
 
2012-12-13 12:04:27 PM  
The official one on the Koran and the public one with a bible cover over it... amirite?
 
2012-12-13 12:04:37 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-13 12:06:07 PM  
That headline has the oddest assortment of caps and hyphens.
 
2012-12-13 12:07:23 PM  
the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.
 
2012-12-13 12:09:54 PM  

Thank You Black Jesus!: Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.

You have clearly studied it out. Thank you for keeping us infromed.


I concur: Pocket Ninja's assessment is very intredasting.
 
2012-12-13 12:15:32 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.



Assuming it hasn't already been done, someone please drag this little jewel over to Free Republic where it can then multiply and grow.
 
2012-12-13 12:15:51 PM  

cram_hole: the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.


That's a fancy way of saying "the aides of three House representatives and a Senator spent half an hour looking through public records and confirmed the question."
 
2012-12-13 12:17:24 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


img845.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 12:18:09 PM  
Long live King Hussein Abdullah Baraka I
 
2012-12-13 12:18:24 PM  

BKITU: cram_hole: the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.

That's a fancy way of saying "the aides of three House representatives and a Senator spent half an hour looking through public records and confirmed the question."


How many meetings do you think it took just to come up with the name and who was on it, etc. I know how bad things like that are where I work, I can just imagine how it is in Congress.
 
2012-12-13 12:24:46 PM  
I heard his 2nd one was on the koran and Roberts can't say anything because Obama has secret gay footage of him, which is how he got him to vote for Obamacare.

I readed it on the interwebs
 
2012-12-13 12:37:45 PM  

theknuckler_33: The official one on the Koran and the public one with a bible cover over it... amirite?


You're too late. That's already in the Yahell derp at least 15 times now. I swear the commentors on the that article are rejects from Blaze.
 
2012-12-13 12:37:56 PM  

cram_hole: BKITU: cram_hole: the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.

That's a fancy way of saying "the aides of three House representatives and a Senator spent half an hour looking through public records and confirmed the question."

How many meetings do you think it took just to come up with the name and who was on it, etc. I know how bad things like that are where I work, I can just imagine how it is in Congress.


Let's see who's on the committee....

*checks teh Googlewebz*

Chuck Schumer, Lamar Alexander, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Cantor, and John Boehner.

That all-star lineup tells me there's no way in hell those six are actually involved in the day-to-day execution.

So, it's basically a way for the Congressional elite to get their names in the news a few extra times each four years by saying "See, we can get along, Kumbaya!" while their staff do all the gruntwork. It's been around since the beginning of the 20th century.

So, the actual work of the committee is probably at DC speeds by third-tier underlings, but since they're organizing the logistics (and security) of a quadrennial, large-scale, high-profile public ceremony where the biggest names in government will all be present, I think it's fair to say that there should be a dedicated committee to handle it.
 
2012-12-13 12:57:49 PM  
My god, the comments are full of herpaderp!

Approaching poe's law. Or is it rule 34?
 
2012-12-13 01:02:58 PM  

Goetz: Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


Assuming it hasn't already been done, someone please drag this little jewel over to Free Republic where it can then multiply and grow.


Just give it a few days and we'll be reading about it on WND.
 
2012-12-13 01:03:29 PM  

BKITU: cram_hole: BKITU: cram_hole: the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.

That's a fancy way of saying "the aides of three House representatives and a Senator spent half an hour looking through public records and confirmed the question."

How many meetings do you think it took just to come up with the name and who was on it, etc. I know how bad things like that are where I work, I can just imagine how it is in Congress.

Let's see who's on the committee....

*checks teh Googlewebz*

Chuck Schumer, Lamar Alexander, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Cantor, and John Boehner.

That all-star lineup tells me there's no way in hell those six are actually involved in the day-to-day execution.

So, it's basically a way for the Congressional elite to get their names in the news a few extra times each four years by saying "See, we can get along, Kumbaya!" while their staff do all the gruntwork. It's been around since the beginning of the 20th century.

So, the actual work of the committee is probably at DC speeds by third-tier underlings, but since they're organizing the logistics (and security) of a quadrennial, large-scale, high-profile public ceremony where the biggest names in government will all be present, I think it's fair to say that there should be a dedicated committee to handle it.


I guarantee you this is how that committee meeting went:

Small conference room in the Capitol. There's six Congresscritters and twice as many staff and interns around the table. Schmuer says, "Thanks for making time, I know you have things to do right before lunch. My chief of staff Bob would like to bring us up to date. Bob?" Bob gives them a two minute rundown on who has been contracted to provide the fixtures, who's doing the wiring, and the Capitol Police and Secret Service security reports. He hands out the itinerary and a budget summary. Cantor and Pelosi ask some slightly bicker-ish questions about who gets seated where. Lamar Alexander #2 asks why Company A was chosen over Company B to provide the stage and risers, but decides not to press the matter because he's got a lunch appointment at Charlie Palmer's. Schumer thanks Bob and the other staffers. They break for lunch and agree to met again in three weeks.
 
2012-12-13 01:06:42 PM  

UNC_Samurai: I guarantee you this is how that committee meeting went:

Small conference room in the Capitol. There's six Congresscritters and twice as many staff and interns around the table. Schmuer says, "Thanks for making time, I know you have things to do right before lunch. My chief of staff Bob would like to bring us up to date. Bob?" Bob gives them a two minute rundown on who has been contracted to provide the fixtures, who's doing the wiring, and the Capitol Police and Secret Service security reports. He hands out the itinerary and a budget summary. Cantor and Pelosi ask some slightly bicker-ish questions about who gets seated where. Lamar Alexander #2 asks why Company A was chosen over Company B to provide the stage and risers, but decides not to press the matter because he's got a lunch appointment at Charlie Palmer's. Schumer thanks Bob and the other staffers. They break for lunch and agree to met again in three weeks.


I buy that.
 
2012-12-13 01:12:51 PM  
Dammit! It's swearings-in
 
2012-12-13 01:13:26 PM  
Aww, my grammar nazi tags didn't make it. Oh well...
 
2012-12-13 01:14:53 PM  

Prospero424: Aww, my grammar nazi tags didn't make it. Oh well...


The swearing was caught by the Fark filter?
 
2012-12-13 01:15:40 PM  
Nope, I'm just bad at html.
 
2012-12-13 01:18:49 PM  
Since Roberts screwed up the first oath did Obama really serve a first term, Pocket? He'll get do overs forever!

Yahoo commenters sure are butt hurt derpers. What I would expect from people who still use yahoo.
 
2012-12-13 01:36:17 PM  
To extend PocketNinja's conspiracy theory a bit more, this whole thing is being done so that Obama can run again in 2016 to give Clinton more time to prepare.

No, not Hillary Clinton. BILL CLINTON....or rather, his CLONE.

Ethics experts say that once cloned (which will require a few more years of maturing technology, hence the need for a third term), Bill Clinton Alpha will not have the same soul nor is he the same entity as Bill Clinton Original, and he'll be allowed to get a new social security number, driver's license and frequent patron punch card at Famous Dave's Bar-B-Q.

Bill Clinton / Julian Castro 2020. BOOK IT. DONE.
 
2012-12-13 01:36:37 PM  
I guess conservatives don't really trust their own hand-picked Chief Justice.
 
2012-12-13 01:37:41 PM  

Prospero424: Dammit! It's swearings-in


and Whoppers-junior, right Bill?
 
2012-12-13 01:38:43 PM  

cram_hole: BKITU: cram_hole: the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.

That's a fancy way of saying "the aides of three House representatives and a Senator spent half an hour looking through public records and confirmed the question."

How many meetings do you think it took just to come up with the name and who was on it, etc. I know how bad things like that are where I work, I can just imagine how it is in Congress.


The Inaugural Joint Congressional Committee to Decide the Membership of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies?
 
2012-12-13 01:39:39 PM  

coeyagi: To extend PocketNinja's conspiracy theory a bit more, this whole thing is being done so that Obama can run again in 2016 to give Clinton more time to prepare.

No, not Hillary Clinton. BILL CLINTON....or rather, his CLONE.

Ethics experts say that once cloned (which will require a few more years of maturing technology, hence the need for a third term), Bill Clinton Alpha will not have the same soul nor is he the same entity as Bill Clinton Original, and he'll be allowed to get a new social security number, driver's license and frequent patron punch card at Famous Dave's Bar-B-Q.

Bill Clinton / Julian Castro 2020. BOOK IT. DONE.


Seriously? That entire post and not a single "Bill Cloneton"?
 
2012-12-13 01:41:33 PM  

Farker Soze: Since Roberts screwed up the first oath did Obama really serve a first term, Pocket? He'll get do overs forever!

Yahoo commenters sure are butt hurt derpers. What I would expect from people who still use yahoo.


I figure Yahoo just runs a bunch of bots so it won't look so dead.
 
2012-12-13 01:43:16 PM  

Prospero424: Dammit! It's swearings-in


Came to say THIS!!!

Forget the War on Christmas, the English language is under full-blown assault from texting, tweeting, email, and even journalism.

It's a compound noun, people!

Courts-Martial
Mothers-in-law
Ladies-in-waiting

You pluralise the PRINCIPLE word, not the desriptor.
 
2012-12-13 01:44:37 PM  
Aww...crap....

Highroller48: PRINCIPLE


principal

Homonym fail!
 
2012-12-13 01:46:08 PM  

qorkfiend: coeyagi: To extend PocketNinja's conspiracy theory a bit more, this whole thing is being done so that Obama can run again in 2016 to give Clinton more time to prepare.

No, not Hillary Clinton. BILL CLINTON....or rather, his CLONE.

Ethics experts say that once cloned (which will require a few more years of maturing technology, hence the need for a third term), Bill Clinton Alpha will not have the same soul nor is he the same entity as Bill Clinton Original, and he'll be allowed to get a new social security number, driver's license and frequent patron punch card at Famous Dave's Bar-B-Q.

Bill Clinton / Julian Castro 2020. BOOK IT. DONE.

Seriously? That entire post and not a single "Bill Cloneton"?


F*ck, I knew I forgot something. God damn details, always forgetting something. And it wasn't something cool enough to net me an extra 100K in my bank account. Superman III RULES!
 
2012-12-13 01:48:41 PM  
In 2009, Obama had a do-over of his oath the day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts accidentally mixed up the words in the public ceremony.

So if Roberts messes up one more time, they'll have to have another do-over, making Obama the most inaugurated U.S. President in history.
 
2012-12-13 02:27:51 PM  
Is this a scandal yet?
 
2012-12-13 02:39:04 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Is this a scandal yet?


MSNBC should try to make it a scandal. It would confuse Fox enough that they'd shut up about Benghazi and the War on Xmas to cover MSNBC. Whether or not they'd support MSNBC's claims that Obama is trying to become a monarch or not remains to be seen. SOROS vs. OBAMA...... FIGHT!
 
2012-12-13 03:13:21 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


I totally believe everything you say.
 
2012-12-13 03:35:25 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


You deserve a Nobel Prize for literature.
 
2012-12-13 04:23:40 PM  
Alright you nitwit-twits who were convinced George W. Bush would cancel the 2008 election over some contrived security threat, OUT YOURSELVES!
 
2012-12-13 04:31:30 PM  

GoldSpider: Alright you nitwit-twits who were convinced George W. Bush would cancel the 2008 election over some contrived security threat, OUT YOURSELVES!


Are you kidding? There are people that still refuse to accept the current President, making Bush the defacto leader in their own minds. Did you see how he lead the party and whipped everyone into a frenzy during all the Republican conventions? The guy is a very established leader in perpetuity.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:10 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Are you kidding? There are people that still refuse to accept the current President, making Bush the defacto leader in their own minds. Did you see how he lead the party and whipped everyone into a frenzy during all the Republican conventions? The guy is a very established leader in perpetuity.


We could also argue that he was never the legitimate president in the first place...
 
2012-12-13 04:34:00 PM  

GoldSpider: Alright you nitwit-twits who were convinced George W. Bush would cancel the 2008 election over some contrived security threat, OUT YOURSELVES!



Oh, he thought about it but figured he couldn't pull it off.

/they all do
 
2012-12-13 04:53:54 PM  

FTA...

l.yimg.com

What is this? A Capitol for ants? How can they be expected to legislate if they can't even fit inside the building?
 
2012-12-13 05:47:07 PM  

Pocket Ninja: It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


When King James II of England was basically being run out of town by William of Orange, he threw the Great Seal - the official seal of his office which he used to seal all royal proclamations - into the Themes. He figured without it, no one else could become King. What did Parliament do? Make a new one.

Ceremony is just that: ceremony.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:39 PM  
Yes but when will Bill Murray depict Barack Obama in a movie?

WHEN WILL BILL MURRAY DEPICT BARACK OBAMA IN A MOVIE

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW

*******THIS
 
2012-12-13 07:52:05 PM  

cram_hole: the historical distinction was confirmed by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Ok, I'm no anti-gubmint guy, but maybe there is a little too much government.


Ummm... Next time your company hosts an event that draws hundreds of thousands of people, requires extremely high security preparations, and is going to be watched by millions around the world, let me know if you decide not to set up a committee, will you?
 
2012-12-14 12:48:43 AM  

Pocket Ninja: That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.


The Twenty-Second Amendment is not circumvented by such a circumstance: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...." Even if a president-elect resigned before beginning his second term, having been twice elected, he would be ineligible to be elected again.
 
2012-12-14 05:21:26 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've done some research on this, and while I don't want to come across as some sort of paranoid nutjob, there is a reason to be concerned by this. See, Obama is doing a "private" swearing in ceremony before his public one. Now, this is a legal ceremony, which binds him to his next four years in office and activates all of the constitutional controls that come along with that. But -- and this where it gets technical -- his public ceremony, which takes place after the private one, is *also* a legal ceremony with full binding powers.

So what does that mean? Well, nothing assuming the two ceremonies are *exactly the same in every way*. But if the second were to vary from the first, what they'd actually end up doing is canceling each other out, since according to numerous legal precedents too numerous to list here you can not have two conflicting contracts in place at the same time. But unless someone was very carefully tracking the two ceremonies, we might never actually know. So Obama serves out four years as president *without ever really having been sworn in*.

That sounds bad, but then consider this: at the end of that period, if it "suddenly" becomes revealed that Obama was never actually president for a second term, what would happen? Well, there are numerous possibilities, but one to consider is that he'd be able to run again. If he never actually technically served a second term, he wouldn't be running for a third term, after all -- he'd be running for his second all over again.

It's a pretty diabolical plan, and I'll be the first to admit it relies on a certain level of assumption. But one must consider all possibilities.


Im pretty sure this would get him killed. (certainly not by me, mr CIA guy monitoring fark, I dont care that much, but SOMEONE - there are enough people who dislike him strongly that there WOULD be revolution if they tried to keep him in office in an affront to the constitution)
 
2012-12-14 05:22:02 AM  
and oh yeah

"Cant this guy do ANYTHING right the first time?"
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report