Talk:2013/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2013, correlation with 1987

{{helpme}} Should it be mentioned that in 2013, it will be the first year since 1987 that there hasn't been a 'double' of any number in the year?

 (Ex. 1989 has two 9's; 1991 has two 9's and two 1's; 2004 had two 0's; and so on.)  kkarma 04:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be put under a trivia section, Next time though, the {{helpme}} notice goes on your talk page ~ LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been removing this addition lately, as it seems to be about the number, rather than about the year. However, its notability as a statement seems to depend on the current epoch, so perhaps it does belong here. Comments, anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find it particuarly important. Neither does WP:RY. Whenaxis (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Inauguration on January 20?

United States presidential inauguration reports:

When Inauguration Day has fallen on a Sunday, the Chief Justice has administered the oath to the President either on inauguration day itself or on the preceding Saturday privately and the following Monday publicly.

If that tradition is continued, the oath of office witll be administered privately on the 19th or 20th, and publicly on the 21st. "Inauguration Day" is still January 20, but that's not necessarily the day of the oath, and is not the day of the ceremony. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The presidential oath of office is administered privately, when Inauguration Day falls on a Sunday. It's then repeated publicly on Monday. Eisenhower & Reagan were both sworn-in privately on Sundays (for their 2nd terms); then publicly the next day. The 20th is the day a term ends & a term begins, according to the 20th Amendment. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower & Reagan were not sworn in on January 19th. Please, see the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(from User talk: Arthur Rubin): Arthur, it's not unsourced & contraversial. According to the 20th Amendment to the US Constituion - January 20th is Inauguration Day. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, the inauguration, by definition, is the formal ceremony, which takes place on January 21. Let's just note that he or she takes power at noon on January 20. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A private cermony is held, when Inauguration Day falls on a Sunday. My version is supported by the Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Use the 1985 example. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. The new president takes power on January 20, but the public inaugural address takes place on January 21 (at least we can assume this, looking back at 1985 and 1957). There were never any inaugurations, private or public, on January 19. Timmeh! 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Formal" in this context does not mean "big public ceremony". The swearing-in would be formal even if there were no public element. There is absolutely no basis for saying that the inauguration will take place on the 21st. The public inaugural ceremony might take place that day (we do not actually know that yet), but the actual inauguration will take place the day before. Perhaps the real solution here is to say that the president will be sworn in on January 20. -Rrius (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So the 1985 example would suffice? We can also add it at 1957. Above all, we're in agreement, January 20th is edged in stone (Sunday or not). GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again (of course), the new President is sworn-in privately; when term begins on a Sunday. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Still unfounded speculation. The private swearing in COULD be on the 19th, if the President were a religous Chrisitian. Similarly, if a Jew were to be elected President, and the 20th fell on a Saturday, the oath would have to have been taken before sundown Friday, as Jewish law forbids taking an oath, other than to God, on the Sabbath. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's worry about that event, if/when it occurs. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The 20th Amendment says Section 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. Those terms begin at noon, whether they were sworn in or not. And the swearing-in certainly would not be done on the 19th, as he is not the President yet. The swearing-in is only a ceremony. For example, LBJ became President the moment JFK died. The swearing-in aboard the airplane was merely for the sake of convention, to give a sense of the Presidency continuing on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In full agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note this item [1] from the government website. Inauguration day for 2013 is January 20, 2013. January 21, is not yet officially designated for the public ceremony. However, it's made clear that it will not be on the 20th, because that's a Sunday. P.S. Reagan was not a "religious Christian"? Gimme a break. Also, the chance of an Orthodox Jew being elected U.S. President is virtually nill. And even if, given the importance of the Presidency, it is highly unlikely that a Jew would commit the "greater sin" of jeopardizing the safety and security of the nation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And a further point is that Inauguration Day is a federal holiday for workers in the D.C. area. Federal holidays do not occur on Sunday, so the actual holiday would be Monday, except that it falls on what is already a federal holiday, in this case MLK Day. So Inauguration Day is the 20th, and the Inauguration Day holiday will be on the 21st or later (likely the 21st, based on past events). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And one more point, from Article II of the Constitution, which states, "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation..." But the amendment says his term begins at noon on the 20th. So he is the President before taking the oath, which simply means he's not supposed to actually exercise any Presidential powers until he has taken the oath. So, in theory, he could take the oath on the 19th, if it came to that, but it wouldn't take effect until the 20th. Don't count on it ever happening that way, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Judaism (at least the Talmud) recognizes "necessity" as overriding almost all Jewish laws, but I (and you) see no reason why the private ceremony shouldn't occur before the 20th. On a more serious note, the private ceremony is usually performed by the Chief Justice. If he is not available on the 20th, for predictable reasons, it would probably cause less damage to the intent for the private swearing-in to be done earlier. (Private swearing, which is what I wrote the first time, is done quite frequently.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the Chief Justice isn't required, to administer the presidential oath of office. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, as a local judge swore LBJ in, 45 years ago minus 9 days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Jew as president

I don't wish to appear contentious but why do you say the chance of an Orthodox Jew being elected President of the USA is nil? A few years ago people would have said the same thing about an African-American with a foreign-sounding name becoming president. And before 1960 nobody would have imagined a Catholic winning the election. As regards Jews, had Henry Kissinger not been born in Germany, it's possible he could have become America's first Jewish president.I have heard that the Roosevelts were originally Sephardic Jews--jeanne (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just my personal opinion. In any case, he would have to accept the oath on the 20th, be it the Sabbath or not. The claim was made that a Jew would not take the oath on the Sabbath. I would counter that an Orthodox Jew might be reluctant. But practicing Jews, in general, make compromises to the Sabbath rules, such as keeping businesses open, at least if most of their target market is Gentile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, if a Jew was running for President, and he made it known he would not take the oath on the Sabbath, that would be a huge issue and would almost certainly lead to his defeat, as he would be putting personal religious beliefs ahead of the welfare of the nation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And not to single out Jews. I would say the same would apply to anyone (Christian, Muslim, etc.) who was running for President and would put his selfish interests ahead of the nation's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder what Joe Lieberman's views are. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I feel confident that he would put nation first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Kennedy didn't accept a sacrament at his Inaugural. Three cheers for seperation of Church & State. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but a priest was called to give him the last rites, although considering that half his head was gone, I'd say he didn't make the request.--jeanne (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe I should bring this up on the JFK assassination page,Who summoned the priest?They'll probably make Oswald take the rap for that as well. Further proof Oswald acted alone, he had the priest on stand-by, complete with testimony from the Warren Commission.--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More likely it was the hospital that had the priest on standby, but I have not studied the matter. However, I am fairly well convinced that Oswald acted alone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of Oswald's guilt but was only joking about the priest. All hospitals have clergy on stand-by as far as I know.--jeanne (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In the police station, when asked if he had killed the President, he gave what sounded like a rehearsed answer. I've never doubted his participation, only whether he was alone or had help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oswald did sound as if he'd been programmed. Almost robotic.--jeanne (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this line of discussion reminds me of this story: A Jewish man is crossing the street and is hit by a car. As he's lying in the road, gravely injured, a Priest runs over and begins to administer the last rites: "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost?" The victim looks up to the sky and cries, "I'm dying, and he's asking me riddles!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. I can see why you are cyber friends with GoodDay. God knows Wikipedia needs more editors with a sense of humour.--jeanne (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)