# President Bush, Vice President Biden **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 20, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222 "2009-01-20T22:12:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/1 "2009-01-20T22:12:38Z")
Joe Biden was sworn in about ten minutes before Barack Obama. Does that mean that, officially, Biden was VP to George W. Bush for that time? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/2 "2009-01-20T22:19:14Z")
No. This and similar questions have been asked about a hundred different ways over the last few weeks. The switch happened at noon Eastern time earlier today. When and if the oath actually takes place is irrelevant. Bonus! Even though Barack was actually sworn in at 12:04, Joe wasn’t the President for four minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/3 "2009-01-20T22:38:02Z")
However, there were a couple of weeks in 2001 when we had the President married to a Senator. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/4 "2009-01-20T22:47:51Z")
nvm ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/5 "2009-01-20T23:27:36Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > When and if the oath actually takes place is irrelevant. Really? The constitution requires the oath, so it can hardly be irrelevant.. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/6 "2009-01-20T23:30:42Z")
The oath is required to start giving orders, but the president becomes president at noon. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/7 "2009-01-20T23:34:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Really? The constitution requires the oath, so it can hardly be irrelevant.. It’s completely irrelevant with respect to the time at which the terms begin and end, which is the question posed in the OP. Biden’s term could not possibly have begun before Bush’s term ended, under any circumstances; the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the beginning and end of Presidential and Vice Presidential terms is at noon. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/8 "2009-01-20T23:41:06Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It’s completely irrelevant with respect to the time at which the terms begin and end, which is the question posed in the OP. Biden’s term could not possibly have begun before Bush’s term ended, under any circumstances; the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the beginning and end of Presidential and Vice Presidential terms is at noon. Obviously, I can’t read today… ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/9 "2009-01-20T23:45:07Z")
I agree that Bush’s term ended at noon, but how can it be said that Obama’s term began at exactly noon when he didn’t take the required oath until 12:04? ---
**Author:** ![slitterst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecc23a/32.png) [@slitterst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slitterst)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/10 "2009-01-20T23:45:51Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > NO, it does not. It specifies that they END at 12:00. It says nothing whatsoever about when they start. 😉 From Amendment 20 – > [@](#): > > 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; **and the terms of their successors shall then begin.** (bolding mine) Seems pretty definite about when the term starts. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/11 "2009-01-20T23:46:19Z")
“…and the terms of their successors shall then begin,” Counselor Jokesterheimer! 😃 ETA: aw, nuts. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/12 "2009-01-20T23:48:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I agree that Bush’s term ended at noon, but how can it be said that Obama’s term began at exactly noon when he didn’t take the required oath until 12:04? Think of it this way: Obama became President at noon, but couldn’t give any orders until he took the oath. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Batman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/22d042/32.png) [@The\_Batman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Batman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/13 "2009-01-20T23:54:22Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] I agree that Bush’s term ended at noon, but how can it be said that Obama’s term began at exactly noon when he didn’t take the required oath until 12:04? [/QUOTE] Because, as the 20th amendment states, there can be no period between presidencies. As soon as someone ceases to be president the successor becomes president. Bush’s term ended at noon, therefore Obama’s term started at noon. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/14 "2009-01-20T23:55:16Z")
[QUOTE=The 20th Amendment] ..and the terms of their successors shall then begin [/QUOTE] Isn’t implicit in this statement the fact that the “successors” qualify? By being a natural born citizen, at least age 35, 14 years a resident of the U.S., AND taking the required oath? Say Obama wanted to be a PIA. Let’s say that he refused to take any oath, simply pointing to the 20th amendment as evidence that his term has begun and that he is now the President. Under your interpretation, would he be right? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Batman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/22d042/32.png) [@The\_Batman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Batman)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/15 "2009-01-21T00:01:18Z")
Yes, He’d be right. He’d be wrong if he thinks he can do anything without the oath, however, or that it would go over well with the country. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/16 "2009-01-21T00:27:39Z")
> [@Tijuana\_Golds](#): > > Yes, He’d be right. He’d be wrong if he thinks he can do anything without the oath, however, or that it would go over well with the country. So you are saying that a person can exist in a state where he IS the President of the United States, but unable to exercise any of the powers of the office? That seems more convulted than saying that Atchison was President for a day or that Biden was President for four minutes.. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/17 "2009-01-21T00:29:47Z")
Or how about: Since Obama/Roberts flubbed the oath, and Obama didn’t say word-for-word what is in the Constitution, he is not/cannot discharge the powers of the President of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/18 "2009-01-21T00:31:47Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Isn’t implicit in this statement the fact that the “successors” qualify? By being a natural born citizen, at least age 35, 14 years a resident of the U.S., AND taking the required oath? > > Say Obama wanted to be a PIA. Let’s say that he refused to take any oath, simply pointing to the 20th amendment as evidence that his term has begun and that he is now the President. Under your interpretation, would he be right? The Constitution sets out three eligiblity conditions: being a natural-born citizen, having attained 35, being a resident for 14 years. Having taken the oath is not an eligibility condition. Rather, it isn an obligation that must be discharged before entering on the execution of the office. Thus, after the beginning of his term but before taking the oath, the President is the President, but he ought not to act as the President. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/19 "2009-01-21T00:37:26Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Or how about: Since Obama/Roberts flubbed the oath, and Obama didn’t say word-for-word what is in the Constitution, he is not/cannot discharge the powers of the President of the United States? The Constitution doesn’t say taht he _cannot_ execute the office before taking the oath; it says that he must take the oath before executing the office. In the same way, I must get a licence before I drive a car. But I can, in reality, drive a car without getting a licence. Were a new President to issue orders before taking the oath, he might be acting in breach of his constitutional obligations, but he is still acting, and the orders are still issued. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222/20 "2009-01-21T00:54:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Isn’t implicit in this statement the fact that the “successors” qualify? By being a natural born citizen, at least age 35, 14 years a resident of the U.S., AND taking the required oath? > > Say Obama wanted to be a PIA. Let’s say that he refused to take any oath, simply pointing to the 20th amendment as evidence that his term has begun and that he is now the President. Under your interpretation, would he be right? The Oath is not required to **become** President; it is required to **exercise the powers** of the Presidency. Picky difference, I grant. See Article II, Section 1, 8th paragraph of the original Constitution. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-vice-president-biden/482222.md?page=2)