The Bungled Oath Of Office

At 12:06 p.m. Tuesday, I was shocked to hear Chief Justice John Roberts bungle the oath of office of President-elect Barack Obama.  The circulation in my toes was just about gone after standing by the Washington Monument for four hours, and Mr. Obama had not properly uttered the 35 words required by the Constitution.  I exclaimed to my wife and friends, "He may not be president.  He's got to say those exact 35 words [in the right order as in the Constitution]."

See for yourself:

Evidently Chief Justice Roberts and White House Counsel Gregory Craig had second thoughts because Roberts journeyed to the White House Wednesday evening and readministered the oath to President Obama as Craig said "in an abundance of caution," so there was no question that Mr. Obama was properly sworn in under the Constitution.

What is wrong that the Chief Justice of the United States can't properly adminster the oath.  Harvard Professor Steven Pinker wrote an outstanding op-ed in the New York Times this morning with a full explanation.  It turns out that The Texas Law Review Manuel on Style has a prohibition against split infinitives that may have subconsciously caused Justice Roberts to edit the Constitutional oath.  What a great read!  I knew our government was broken, but I never imagined it was so broken that the presidential oath of office could be bungled.