Newdow seeks injuction to prevent P.E. Obama from saying

[TheKassi]

Guh, read your link. United States v. Nixon is about executive privilege and the power of the Court to issue subpoenas. It is not about ordering the executive branch in the uses of executive power. If you wish to look into the authority of the courts over uses of executive power, I would recommend starting with Mississippi v. Johnson, and working forward.

If you have no interest in doing the research, the following quote sums it up nicely.

[quote]It is true that a State may file an original bill in this court. And it may be true, in some cases, that such a bill may be filed against the United States. But we are fully satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to [b]enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties[/b]; and that no such bill ought to be received by us.[/quote]

Or you could just read Newdow I or Newdow II.

[Maester Yobjascz]

You said that the separation of powers prevents the Supreme Court from giving orders to the President. I referred to U.S. v. Nixon to show that the separation of powers does *not* keep the Supreme Court from giving orders to the President of the U.S. It wasn't the best case to quote for that, and I obviously didn't make my point very carefully, but I was in a rush to get out of the house and it was the first case to come to mind.

Mississippi v. Johnson is clearly more on point because of a distinction that you've ignored: while the Court cannot tell the President how to execute his executive duties, they *can* order him to perform ministerial duties: "In each of these cases, nothing was left to discretion. There was no room for the exercise of judgment. The law required the performance of a single specific act, and that performance, it was held, might be required by mandamus." The oath to swear in the President, which is a specific act required by the Constitution, is arguably this type of ministerial duty.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Maester Yobjascz' post='1652809' date='Jan 17 2009, 19.56']You said that the separation of powers prevents the Supreme Court from giving orders to the President.[/quote]

No. I argued that the Supreme Court could not give the President a very specific order, to instruct the oath giver he selects not to affirm his oath with “So help me god.” or instruct the people he selects to organize his inaugural ceremony not to invite religious officials to speak.

Bolding only the first quarter of a very specific order doesn't make the other three quarters mystically vanish.

[quote name='Maester Yobjascz' post='1652809' date='Jan 17 2009, 19.56']Mississippi v. Johnson is clearly more on point because of a distinction that you've ignored: while the Court cannot tell the President how to execute his executive duties, they *can* order him to perform ministerial duties: "In each of these cases, nothing was left to discretion. There was no room for the exercise of judgment. The law required the performance of a single specific act, and that performance, it was held, might be required by mandamus." The oath to swear in the President, which is a specific act required by the Constitution, is arguably this type of ministerial duty.[/quote]

Taking the oath is a specific act required by The Constitution. President Elect Obama doesn't get to become President Obama if he doesn't take the oath. That is however completely irrelevant to the conversation. Obama isn't trying to become president without taking the oath.

Obama is instructing Chief Justice Roberts to affirm his oath with the words 'so help me god' after the oath is concluded. You can spend the rest of your life reading The Constitution, and never run into the part where they talk about the stance of the founding fathers on the affirmations of official oaths.

[Maester Yobjascz]

[quote name='The Kassi']No. I argued that the Supreme Court could not give the President a very specific order, to instruct the oath giver he selects not to affirm his oath with “So help me god.” or instruct the people he selects to organize his inaugural ceremony not to invite religious officials to speak.
...
Taking the oath is a specific act required by The Constitution.[/quote]
vs.
[quote name='Mississippi v. Johnson']A ministerial duty the performance of which may, in proper cases, be required of the head of a department by judicial process is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion. It is a simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law.

The case of Marbury v. Madison, Secretary of State, [n1] furnishes an illustration. A citizen had been nominated, confirmed, and appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, and his commission had been made out, signed, and sealed. Nothing remained to be done except delivery, and the duty of delivery was imposed by law on the Secretary of State. It was held that the performance of this duty might be enforced by mandamus issuing from a court having jurisdiction. [p499]

So, in the case of Kendall, Postmaster General v. Stockton & Stokes, [n2] an act of Congress had directed the Postmaster General to credit Stockton & Stokes with such sums as the Solicitor of the Treasury should find due to them, and that officer refused to credit them with certain sums so found due. It was held that the crediting of this money was a mere ministerial duty the performance of which might be judicially enforced.

In each of these cases, nothing was left to discretion. There was no room for the exercise of judgment. The law required the performance of a single specific act, and that performance, it was held, might be required by mandamus.[/quote]

[quote name='The Kassi']You can spend the rest of your life reading The Constitution, and never run into the part where they talk about the stance of the founding fathers on the affirmations of official oaths.[/quote]

This being one of the problems with originalism as a judicial ideology.

And we are pretty far afield of the original topic...

[TheKassi]

You need to start reading the things you are posting, instead of simply quoting things vaguely related to the topic. What you quoted does say that the courts have the power to compel performance of some duties. Obama isn't trying to get out of his official duties. Someone is just taking issue with what he plans to do immediately after.

The Secretary of State in Marbury v. Madison had a duty to deliver a commission. Every single aspect of how he was going to go about it was not set down in stone. He could have ridden over on a donkey, crab walked, jogged, or sprinted as fast as his legs could carry him. He could wear blue or black. He could smile or frown. He could solemnly proclaim: ”All in a day's work “ once his job was done, or loudly cry out “Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.”

A complaint filed to force the Secretary of State not to say “All in a day's work.” after finishing up his task would have been toothless.

After the oath is concluded, closing his obligations in that area, Obama has instructed the oath giver he has selected that he wishes to affirm his oath. The Constitution doesn't say what Obama is required to do before or after the oath. Thus it is left up to him to decide such things. He can Disco out in very tight white pants, say the words in the oath, and then join with Roberts in a rousing chorus of stayin' alive if he happens to loose his damn mind in the next couple days.

Even Newdow says (currently) says so.

[Meili]

I got nauseas today with the 'god' that was tossed around. Anytime intelligent people talk about a being with not even as much evidence as UFOs being referenced as somehow guiding this country and my livelihood. I almost puked when Warren did his thing. I am not blowing Obama yet like here and countless other places so maybe I was able to see it more clearly than some here but I wasn't expecting that. It really is dyslectic look backwards at the constitution and how we shouldn't have any 'god' prayed to in an official government capacity. I puked everytime Bush did it. I am expecting to do so with this pandering ass. At least with Obama I think he is to smart to actually believe in it telling him how to run the country. Bush scared the shit out of me everytime the god dude told him what to do..... for example, bring democracy to a foreign nation by force because that dude was honestly hearing voices.

edited - it was Lowery who flung it around. (not to mention being a tad racist and condescending)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Meili,

[quote]edited - it was Lowery who flung it around. (not to mention being a tad racist and condescending)[/quote]

What you don't like clever color (race) based rhymes?

:P

[Ouroboros]

So did he end up saying it or what?

[TerraPrime]

Yes he did, quite clearly and quite loudly.

[Ouroboros]

Heh, cool. Good on him for standing by his beliefs.

[Meili]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1655796' date='Jan 20 2009, 16.09']Meili,



What you don't like clever color (race) based rhymes?

:P[/quote]

Not a big fan Scot (I don't like decent rhyming poetry either :thumbsup: ). When someone says hopefully we are at a time 'when white will embrace what's right' it makes me wonder what would be done if the opposite were said about the 'blacks'. I'm tired of being told that we, the 'white' people, need to start behaving correctly. As far as I know, me (aka mr. white man) doesn't have a color orientated bone in my body so people can stop with the generalizing already. Last time I checked I wasn't in some all white is good power group and I have always tried to embrace what's right, not to mention that I think all people are the same and if we want equality we need to stop breaking people into these groups ie 'Red Man', 'brown man' etc.... Off tangent though as this is about religion

[gryphon strike]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1655826' date='Jan 21 2009, 08.53']Yes he did, quite clearly and quite loudly.[/quote]
Yes but it is not like he was really given a chioce, the guy taking the oath added it in a questioning tone and he was smart enough to repeat it with barely a delay.
Lets face it if he had not said it then he would have been up shit creek in a barbed wire canoe and no paddle as far as his presidency goes. I am surprised that it was asked in a questioning tone since I would expect that sort of thing to be worked out well in advance.

[Tempra]

[quote name='gryphon strike' post='1656447' date='Jan 21 2009, 02.04']Yes but it is not like he was really given a chioce, the guy taking the oath added it in a questioning tone and he was smart enough to repeat it with barely a delay.
Lets face it if he had not said it then he would have been up shit creek in a barbed wire canoe and no paddle as far as his presidency goes. I am surprised that it was asked in a questioning tone since I would expect that sort of thing to be worked out well in advance.[/quote]

Maybe you haven't heard Obama speak all that much, but he is arguably the most religious president we've had in a long time. He's definitely on par with bush. What makes you think he would have ANY reservation about saying SHMG? As for the questioning tone(i don't recall), Obama and Roberts both flubbed the oath. I'm sure they both just wanted to get it over with.

I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Obama has already invoked God more times in the past 1.5 years than Bush did in the 8-9 years that he's been on the national scene.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

That was CJ Robert's fulb. Not Pres. Obama's.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

They both flubbed it, Scot. Obama repeated Roberts' original, incorrect wording, even after Roberts corrected himself.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1656651' date='Jan 21 2009, 08.37']Tempra,

That was CJ Robert's fulb. Not Pres. Obama's.[/quote]

Obama jumped the gun. He broke in saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama," before Roberts finished saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear." No excuse for Roberts flubbing the rest of the oath and not bringing note cards so such an event didn't happen. But Obama quite clearly messed up.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMyPf4qvdbw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMyPf4qvdbw[/url]

[Tempra]

[quote name='Marie-Angélieef' post='1656653' date='Jan 21 2009, 08.40']They both flubbed it, Scot. Obama repeated Roberts' original, incorrect wording, even after Roberts corrected himself.[/quote]


Then Obama flubbed twice. Granted, Roberts stumbled repeating the original.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='gryphon strike' post='1656447' date='Jan 20 2009, 23.04']Yes but it is not like he was really given a chioce, the guy taking the oath added it in a questioning tone and he was smart enough to repeat it with barely a delay.[/quote]

Given that Obama instructed Roberts to prompt him to affirm his oath with so help me god days and days ago, I am not sure how such an argument is possible. Would you explain?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

TheKassi, how do you know Obama instructed him to do so? (Other than "well it happened, so he must have".)

[Tempra]

[quote name='Marie-Angélieef' post='1656814' date='Jan 21 2009, 11.16']TheKassi, how do you know Obama instructed him to do so? (Other than "well it happened, so he must have".)[/quote]


"Before the commencement of this lawsuit, the Chief Justice instructed me to ascertain from President-Elect Obama’s representatives the President-Elect’s wishes concerning the administration of the oath of office at the inauguration, including his wishes concerning the inclusion of the phrase ‘So help me God’ after the conclusion of the constitutional oath. . . [b]An authorized representative of the President-Elect has informed me that the President-Elect wishes to conclude the oath with the phrase ‘So help me God’ "[/b]

[url="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/12/obama-so-help-me-god-i-want-to-speak-the-words/"]http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/12/obama-...peak-the-words/[/url]