Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests or asks, I mean who says that the inauguration has to be in Washington DC? I was thinking about this over the past few days; I have been reading a lot of just news and things since the news of the election, and there has been a lot of talk because there have been attempts on the life of Mr. Trump over the past, at least apparently there have been attempts, it looks pretty genuine to me. I know some people have their own questions about some of these events but there has clearly been something going down; there are people that would wish the President harm. I thought that was sort of a known fact that we all kind of knew but apparently there seems to be some dispute about that out there in the world. To my mind it's like look it's a given. I mean he is the leader of a country of 350 million people, there's going to be somebody in the group or in the out-group of the rest of the world that is not going to like the guy.

That said, the notion of inauguration and not being in D.C. brought up something in my mind that I've had a pet theory about for years going back to my early teens. I think I went to Monticello when I was like 14 years old and I remember one of the curators - because it's sort of a museum now - basically said Thomas Jefferson and the other founders really took a lot of inspiration from not only ancient Rome and Greece but a lot of people forget the Holy Roman Empire which I believe Voltaire once described as being neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, but one of the things I thought was interesting in the history of the Holy Roman Empire, one of the inherent checks that I don't think the Holy Romans if you want to call them that were aware of was the fact it had no Capital. The Emperor was where the capital was, so wherever the Emperor was, was sort of where the imperial Court if you will, the imperial bureaucracy was. It sort of surrounded him and wherever he went in the Holy Roman Empire is kind of where it went. 

The reason I bring this up is one of the things the founders constantly harped about in their own letters to each other and things, was it really made them uneasy that they carved out the District of Columbia and they went out of their way to make sure it was not a state, because they feared like a Rome, where the city state becomes sort of the epicentre of this empire and the empire starts to grow because it has got to feed the city, it doesn't really care about the nation, it's just the city becomes sort of the event horizon of a black hole if you will, liberty in the sense of the way these guys thought about it. One of the pet theories I've had over the years is we could just go to a system where the Federal US Capital just moves every year. Just have it start and go over to Delaware, the first state that ratified the Constitution, move down the list in terms of date of ratification and just move it each year. My personal opinion is one, people would say "well that's inconvenient for the Federal Bureaucrats!" Well boo hoo for the Federal Bureaucrats. Darn it! Your whole life becomes like following around the grateful dead; you get to go from state to state capital, it would be nice, you'll enjoy it. 

Meanwhile, the other thing is it will bring benefits to each of the state capitals; it would be like a World's Fair every year. You just move from Capital to Capital; bring the Federal Government with you. People get to come in and see how Congressional hearings work - maybe leave Congress in DC - but move around the Supremes or something. Have them do their thing in different State Capitals. The President hangs out in each state capital, goes back to Washington. Do it like Congressman do it. They have got to be there a week, a month or something because that's where the Federal Capital is but move it around, and one of the big reasons for that is that way you don't create a geographic sort of state within a state if you will. This whole notion of a Deep State, I think 90% of it emanates from the fact that all the people that are a lot of the people that work in the federal bureaucracy especially the middle and higher tiers of Federal Bureaucracy are all in D.C.; they're all there together. If they're moving around, it would change things up a little bit. 

That said, I thought of that when they were talking about the inauguration and that took me over to actually the Library of Congress blogs and this is at blogs.loc.gov under Presidential Inaugurations outside of Washington, D.C. - Law and Tradition. Quoting directly: "What aspects of presidential inaugurations are mandated by law? Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the actual language of the oath or affirmation (incoming presidents can "swear" or "affirm") including the phrase "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which has caused the occasional slip of the tongue and confusion over word order. The starting date of the Presidential term ("inauguration day") is also set by the twentieth amendment to the Constitution as January 20th. Beyond this, everything else surrounding Presidential Inauguration is based on customs. As noted by Michael Nelson in Guide to the Presidency and the Executive Branch (page 365): "Ritual acts pervade politics in recognition that the symbolism of public rites reassures and binds together diverse peoples. In keeping with this understanding, each Presidential election is capped by a ceremony of grand proportions: the inauguration of the new President. This ceremony is an overt political ritual intended to instill patriotism, unite the nation behind its leader, and provide for an orderly transition of power... Yet almost nothing of that ceremony is required by law. Most of it has evolved by way of tradition." 

Yeah, and the thing I am bringing up is much in line with the notion that the Federal Capital has to remain in D.C. If it does remain in D.C. who's to say that maybe President Trump isn't the first President that chooses some other place to be inaugurated. And as they go into in that blog and I urge those who are watching this video, go check that out, most of the time when this would happen it would generally happen as a result of the death of the sitting President and wherever the VP was at, they would usually just swear him in right then and there. As they noted in there, I think Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in New York City; I think they mentioned Chester A. Arthur definitely was sworn in in New York when James A. Garfield passed away. Again, it's not unprecedented that there are inaugurations outside of D.C. L.B.J was sworn in I believe in Texas before they got on the plane, or he was even on the plane on their way out of Dallas to get to get to D.C. and that was basically where he was at when he was sworn in as President was down in Texas. 

So again, those are all under tragic circumstances but again it does bring up the question, I mean who's to say that the inauguration has to occur in D.C. anyway?