“So help me God” is not in the official text of the Oath of Office. It is added voluntarily by the oathtaker.
Not that any modern pol would dare omit it by now, of course.
Some past presidents have skipped the “so help me God” part, others have skipped the “swear” part and I think not all of them have used the Bible. Some of it is traditional but none of it is required as part of the oath.
Interesting. Is there a list of which President skipped what?
I agree that it is a waste of time and enrgy.
I agree that, in this case, the matter should certainly be considered settled: as noted, using an oath that the oath-taker considers binding hardly seems to be prohibited by the Constitution.
I would still say that “ceremonial deism” is nothing but an ass-covering legal falsehood to allow SCOTUS to avoid taking a legitimate stand against putting religious phrases on the money, (or in the PoA), but swearing an oath is not a violation. (In fact, for those who want to pretend that there is an issue, since the Constitution actually uses the phrase “Oath or Affirmation,” the addition of “so help me God” to the prescribed text is perfectly compatible. (Otherwise it would be only an affirmation.)
Yes, he did, but as it turned out, he had very limited custody (~20% of the time or something) and had not made any objection in family court over the fact that his daughter was actively receiving Catholic religious instruction and attending worship while with her mother. While the latter wasn’t a part of what had his standing claim dismissed, it certainly suggested that he was not engaging in the pledge case to protect his child from religious values he objected to and therefore seeking redress of a personal harm, but that he was instead using the child as an entry into the courts in order to push an agenda.
I felt the same way about their ruling that Newdow didn’t have standing.
Rumor has it that both Kennedy and Lincoln skipped the part that says “cross my heart and hope to die.” However, the karmic retribution from this omission has been thoroughly debunked. Lincoln hand-clapped with the Chief Justice and did the “say say o playmate” routine and Kennedy turned three times in a circle, threw salt over his left shoulder, and spat over his right shoulder.
This is kind of what I am saying. He didn’t have any independent standing for the matter, so it could be dismissed. Here he doesn’t even have the mask of standing that he had before, so his sole basis will be that of a tax payer.
Wild ass guess, but wasnt Nixon as a quaker supposed to omit the whole god thing? I know some variants of judeo-christianity conisder swearing using the name of god as not quite proper…
Nixon swore on the Precious.
Just about every President since George Washington has added “So help me God.” It’s part of a longstanding and historic civic ritual that is almost completely drained of religious content. It hurts no one. Newdow will, and should, lose.
And thank you, Bricker, for getting Roberts’s exact title right. 
Flast v. Cohen is the case that carves out taxpayer standing for Establishment Clause violations, but it seems to have been pretty much limited to its own facts. The Supreme Court declined to extend Flast to actions by the executive in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007). Reiterating their earlier decision in Valley Forge, the court wrote:
127 S. Ct. at 2566. Unless Congress is authorizing payment to Roberts specifically for this service, I doubt there is even a colorable argument that it fits Flast.
Thanks - I knew there was something out there. I just couldn’t remember which way it cut on this. I remember Valley Forge, certainly.
Not necessarily. I can file a lawsuit and serve process on one or more defendants without getting permission or approval from anybody. Depending on the type of action, I may be able to set it for a hearing. The rules may be different in other jurisdictions.
Well, technically, it’s ceremonial deism, “…protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because [it has] lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.”
I agree. These extremes only provide fodder for right wing media and invigorate the paranoid fringe.
Right. In every jurisdiction I’ve seen, the court clerk issues the summons. The only exception is *forma pauperis * cases (where the plaintiff asks the court to waive the filing fees and costs of service).
The issuance of a summons means nothing. In this case, though, the plaintiff has asked the court to issue a restraining order, the judge has ordered the defendants to respond and set a hearing for January 15. So there’s a little more to it than just issuing a summons.
If it has no significant religious content, why does the Religious Right argue for its continuation and preservation, then?
Maybe because it does *too *have such content, and the ruling you’re quoting is somewhere between disingenuous and a simple lie? :dubious:
It only violates the the prohibition on religious tests if the person’s failure to say “so help me God” makes it invalid. Since the person being sworn in becomes president regardless, there’s no element of a test there.