Did Obamas swearing in on the Koran make the american public want to kill us more? It’s an interesting question. I can imagine people wanting to kill the president of the united states, but I’m not sure if that would make a lot of people want to kill us more. I am not sure that the amount of people who wanted to kill the president was a reason for the constitution to say “no” to his swearing in.
I believe that a lot of people are more afraid of Obama being assassinated than they are of him being Muslim, but I don’t think that would help his chances of being elected. There was a point where even some of his supporters were saying that his speech to the UN was not good enough to win the presidency. There were some who even called for a re-election because they believed that he was not sincere enough in his support of the constitution.
I don’t know whether he was sincere. I do know that he didn’t seem sincere at all. While many of those who signed his letter to the UN were still calling for his assassination, and many even wanted Obama to be impeached, his supporters were saying that if he was going to take an oath, he should follow the Constitution. If the constitution is important to you, then you should follow the Constitution. If you don’t, then you shouldn’t be president.
I don’t know if Obama is being sincere about his oath, but there was a lot of support in the “uncommitted” camp for him to take an oath to uphold the constitution. Obama might not have been the only one who considered what kind of oath he should take, but many believed that he was saying that if he is elected, he would be his own man and follow the constitution, even if it meant taking an oath to uphold it.
Obama’s oath is a bit awkward, but it’s not exactly a violation of the constitution either. Obama has already stated in a few interviews that he intends to keep his oath of office, and I think it’s safe to assume that he’s not swearing it as part of the constitution. In fact, I think it’s more likely that he’s simply trying to sound smart and sincere while still being true to his oath to uphold the constitution.
While there is nothing wrong with swearing to uphold the constitution, it does seem hypocritical for a president to be swearing to uphold some laws while simultaneously swearing to uphold a different set of laws that he swore to uphold while he was president. That being said, the Constitution is the law, and its clear that the president can ignore the Constitution and still be acting within the law. So while I do think the president should ignore some parts of the Constitution, it seems more likely that he is breaking the law.
The President’s staff is the only one who can be held responsible for anything the president does. So while the president can say he broke the law and therefore broke the law, he’s still responsible for breaking the law. And for that he’s a clear violator of the Constitution.
President Obama is breaking the law in many ways. He is breaking the law by ignoring the Constitution and by acting more than he should under the law. He is also breaking the law by promising to fix all of the problems he’s created. He is breaking the law by promising to fix a few problems and not fix the many problems he has created. And finally he is breaking the law by violating the oath he took when he was sworn in.
The Constitution is the law of the land. It is the law of the land that everyone has to obey. It is the law of the land that the government should obey. And it is the law of the land that the nation should obey. If you want to break the law, you don’t have to do it. If you want to say, “I’m going to break the law I’m going to do it.
Obama’s oath of office is an oath of allegiance to the constitution. To me, this means that he swore to uphold the constitution. Not to break the law.