Biblical Blunder: Trump's Untraditional Inauguration & The History Of Oath-Taking
President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, was marked by a number of unusual and controversial events. One of the most notable was the President's decision to depart from the traditional wording of the presidential oath of office, as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.
Trump's Biblical Blunder
In the traditional oath, the President swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." However, Trump omitted the word "preserve" from his oath, saying instead that he would "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This omission was widely criticized by legal scholars and constitutional experts, who argued that it was a significant departure from the original intent of the oath.
Some commentators have suggested that Trump's omission of the word "preserve" was a deliberate attempt to distance himself from the Obama administration's policies. Others have suggested that it was simply a mistake. However, the President's own comments on the matter have been contradictory. In an interview with Fox News, Trump said that he had "no idea" why he had omitted the word "preserve," but that he believed his oath was "just as good" as the traditional oath.
The History of Oath-Taking
The tradition of taking an oath dates back to ancient times. In many cultures, oaths were used to swear allegiance to a leader or to confirm the truth of a statement. In the United States, the presidential oath of office is required by the Constitution, and it has been taken by every President since George Washington.
The wording of the presidential oath of office has changed over time, but the core elements have remained the same. The President swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States." These words are meant to reflect the President's duty to uphold the Constitution and to serve the American people.
Criticisms of Trump's Oath
Trump's decision to depart from the traditional wording of the presidential oath of office has been criticized by some legal scholars and constitutional experts. They argue that the word "preserve" is essential to the oath, as it reflects the President's duty to protect the Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic. They also argue that Trump's omission of the word "preserve" could set a dangerous precedent for future Presidents.
Others have defended Trump's decision to depart from the traditional wording of the oath. They argue that the President is not bound by the exact wording of the oath, and that he is free to interpret the oath in a way that he believes is consistent with his own beliefs and values.
Conclusion
The debate over the significance of Trump's omission of the word "preserve" from the presidential oath of office is likely to continue. However, it is clear that the President's decision to depart from the traditional wording of the oath has raised important questions about the role of the President and the importance of the Constitution.
