Why he's still not the 44th

If you watched Barack Obama's swearing-in yesterday, you may have noticed a little verbal gaffe by Chief Justice John Roberts as he misstated the official oath of office.

For most viewers, it was a time to laugh at a light-hearted moment in an otherwise very serious ceremony. Even though Roberts flubbed the exact wording of the oath, Barack Obama, after a momentary pause, continued with the oath as the Chief Justice had said it. Pundits today were observing that Obama deferred to Roberts' wording out of respect for the position of the Justice. To them, it was an endearing moment.

For political scientists, it was very much more.

Almost immediately political scholars and theorists were buzzing over the blooper, its implications and possible consequences. It has the very real potential of being a very serious problem.

To understand why, you need to understand two important facets of the current Supreme Court and of that oath.

When George Bush appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito the court, he did so because both men passed an important acid test near-and-dear to political conservatives: that being that both men ascribe to a school of political thought called "Constitutional Strict-Constructionism."

People of this school believe in the quite literal interpretation of the meaning and words of the Constitution, that there is little room for creative 'wiggle' in interpreting the Constitution.

As a Constitutional Strict-Constructionist, John Roberts believes that what the Constitution says is what the Constitution means. Anything not allowed, anything not forbidden -- all those things required or prohibited -- by the exact wording of the document are not open to "liberal" interpretation.

The Oath of Office that John Roberts goofed-up is, as it happens, the only exact phrase that is explicitly required in the Constitution. It states exactly the words that a President must say to be legally sworn-in to his office.

The fact that Roberts flubbed the wording and that Obama deferred to that flub could, to a Constitutional Strict-Constructionist, fully disqualify Obama from the office. Without having been duly sworn as the Constitution requires, he really isn't President.

What's most remarkable about this is that, should someone challenge Obama's legitimacy as President on these grounds -- and that's almost guaranteed, especially in light of the many court challenges to Obama's qualifications as a candidate before and after the election (John McCain's status was also challenged, you may remember, as was that of the Green Party candidate) -- it would be that self-same John Roberts who would most likely rule that Obama had, in fact, not repeated the oath exactly as prescribed.

John Roberts' flub may have been an accident.It may have not.Either way, for political purists (and, for the record, I too am one of those) Obama's legal tenure as the 44th President is still not secure.

Way to go, John.
We're still awaiting our 44th President.